Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the responsibility of the present re-absorption officer in Belize who has been appointed on a temporary basis to deal with the unemployment problem; what staff and office accommodation is available to this officer; what is the number of ex-Service men for whom this officer has been able to obtain employment; and what was the number of registered unemployed in British Honduras at the latest convenient date.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): My hon. Friend no doubt has in mind the liaison officer, appointed to attend to ex-Service men's problems, including employment. This officer is attached to and has an office in the Labour Department. It has not been found necessary to provide him with a separate staff of his own. At the end of November, there were 645 registered unemployed in British Honduras, of whom 102 were ex-Service men. Between that date and the end of January, the number of unemployed ex-Service men on the register was reduced to 74, including 42 for whom casual work has been found.

Mr. Cooper: Does the Colonial Secretary realise that the figures of registered

unemployed give little real indication of the unemployment problem in Honduras, because few men continue to register when they see that so little is done for them? Can he give an assurance that something more vigorous will be done in future than has been done in the past to alleviate this problem, which I have been following up for over a year with little result?

Mr. Creech Jones: In the difficult economic circumstances of British Honduras, everything possible is being done to find employment for these men, and the figures which I have given do indicate an important reduction.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether "re-absorption officer" is the official title of this man, and what are his exact functions?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have not the official title here, but that is certainly not the title by which he is known in British Honduras.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Will the figures distinguish between the native and the white populations?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir; not the figures in my reply.

Mr. Cooper: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the registered figures, unless registration is made compulsory, really do not indicate the size of the problem?

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to establish a well-organised employment exchange in Belize, British Honduras, in order to tackle more effectively than at the present time the urgent unemployment problem.

Mr. Creech Jones: Government Departments are required to obtain such labour as they need through the Labour Department, which fulfils the functions of an employment exchange and maintains a register of unemployed. That Department also keeps in touch with private employers for the same purpose, and there would be no advantage in establishing a separate employment exchange.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer does not bear out the testimony coming from the


Colony, and will he look into this matter again, because he will no doubt realise that the problem will not be solved until new development schemes are introduced and new industries are developed in the Colony?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would point out that very considerable attention is being given to the recommendations of the Commission which visited Honduras, and many of its recommendations are being applied at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could not the Governor be recalled for consultation?

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG (BROADCASTING STATION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the strength of the Hong Kong Radio is only 2½kilowatts; that this station cannot possibly be heard in Canton or even in some parts of the New Territories; and what steps are being taken to improve the coverage of the Hong Kong station.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware that the present power of the Hong Kong Broadcasting Station may not give a fully effective service to the whole of the new territories at all times and seasons. The possibility of an increase in power, which would improve the service to all parts of the Colony, is already being examined.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Government going to try to set up a broadcasting station in Hong Kong that can be heard throughout South China as well, or are they going to neglect this opportunity of getting in touch with a large number of people in China?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is, of course, the broadcasting station in Malaya, but the whole of our broadcasting policy in these British territories is now being very closely examined.

Mr. Gammans: What is the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is a broadcasting station in Malaya?

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member referred to South China.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that broadcasts from the Malayan broadcasting station will be heard in South China?

Mr. Creech Jones: No, I am saying that the whole of our broadcasting policy in that part of the world is now under close examination by the Government.

Mr. Fletcher: But can the station be heard in South China?

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Radio Hong Kong continues to be under the control of the Postmaster-General instead of setting up a special radio department in Malaya.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am consulting the Governor of Hong Kong on the point raised by the hon. Member and will communicate with him as soon as I have received the Governor's reply.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction in Hong Kong about this arrangement, for people do not see why they cannot have the same sort of set-up as Malaya?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is for that reason that I am in contact with the Governor of Hong Kong to discover whether further changes can be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS (DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present constitution and function of the Cameroons Development Corporation; by whom appointments are made to it; and what governmental control is exercised over it.

Mr. Creech Jones: This Corporation was forced to develop the resources of certain ex-enemy properties in the Cameroons under United Kingdom Trusteeship. Its constitution and functions are set out in Nigerian Ordinance No. 39 of 1946, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. Appointments to the Corporation are made by the Governor. As regards the last part of the Question, the Corporation is required to submit annually to the


Governor of Nigeria a Report on its operation and policy, and a statement of accounts has to be laid before the Legislative Council. Its net profits have to be applied under the direction of the Governor for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Trust Territory.

Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is proper co-ordination between the functions of the Nigerian administration and the officials of the Cameroons Development Corporation in respect of matters like education and labour conditions in the work which is being done in the Cameroons?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is very close co-ordination between the work of the Trust territory and the Nigerian Government.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Has there been any review of this matter in the last nine months, because at an earlier date there was a very definite division of view between the Corporation and the Nigerian Government on responsibility, with education falling between two stools?

Mr. Creech Jones: Responsibility is with the Nigerian Government and this matter has recently been under discussion again.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Students, United Kingdom (Accommodation)

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are made to provide suitable hostel or other accommodation for colonial students arriving in this country for the first time; and whether he is satisfied with the present position.

Mr. Creech Jones: Arrangements are made to provide colonial students with accommodation in hostels, University Halls of Residence, or in suitable lodgings. I am satisfied that the arrangements for new arrivals are adequate.

Mr. Davies: Would not the Minister agree that wherever possible it is desirable for West Africans and other colonial people coming to this country to have an opportunity to mix with good English families? Will he pay increasing attention to that and get more families to make offers to accommodate them?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, it is part of our general policy not to segregate colonial peoples in this country but to find accommodation for them as far as possible in British homes. Obviously, however, there are very real difficulties and hostels become essential if we are to cope with the problem of accommodation for the students coming here.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if anything is being done to provide playing field facilities for the students?

Mr. Creech Jones: That problem is being looked into at the moment by the welfare department of the Colonial Office.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Are there at present any hostels for British and Colonial students, mixed?

Mr. Creech Jones: We are anxious in the case of the universities that such hostels should be established and some progress has already been made. I believe in the case of London there is already a mixed hostel in operation.

Colonel Clarke: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of these hostels is at Colonial House, Stepney? Is he aware that it is reported that this house was raided on 29th January, by the police as a gambling house and that it is also reported as a centre of undesirable ideological propaganda?

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like notice of that question. I am aware that there has been some incident at the East End hostel or centre but I am not in a position to answer for the facts without proper notice.

Official Visits

Mr. Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials on the staff of the Colonial Office paid visits to any part of the British Colonies for any purpose during the years ended 31st December, 1947, and 31st December, 1938, respectively.

Mr. Creech Jones: Fifty-two in 1947 and 11 in 1938.

Mr. Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the claim recently publicised by the Governor of the Leeward Islands about the number of fruitless


journeys made by officials from his Department, which claim is confirmed by Colonial officials in other parts of the Empire; and is he instituting some check to ensure that all these journeys are really necessary and productive?

Mr. Creech Jones: All the journeys being made are necessary. It is important that the Colonial Office should be staffed by people with some experience in the Colonies. I can only say that if such a statement is made in regard to the Leeward Islands it is just nonsense.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the old days, when air travel was difficult, the continual complaint of the Colonies was that not enough visits were made from the Colonial Office? Is it not a very good thing that more and more visits should be made?

Mr. Thomas Reid: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in addition to sending out these officials, he would make it his policy to staff the Colonial Office as far as possible with people with long administrative and political experience of the Colonies?

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is it not a fact that, now air travel and conditions of travel are so much easier, more and more officials are needed, especially those with technical experience, to go round? Will he encourage that as much as possible?

Mr. Creech Jones: Certainly. It is being encouraged in every possible way and the figures I have quoted indicate the progress which has been made since the war.

Women (Circumcision)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what British dependencies the rite of female circumcision is practised; and what steps are taken to bring the practice to an end.

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the rites of female circumcision, generally in their less severe forms, are practised among a few tribes in certain of the African dependencies. I am not aware that the custom exists in British dependencies outside these areas. By tactful and unobtrusive persuasion, Governments have influenced and continue to influence

African opinion in favour of its abolition, and with the spread of education and knowledge of hygiene there is reason to believe that progress will be made.

MALAYA (INSURANCE)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with bringing into being a Government insurance scheme in Malaya, in view of the fact that without such a scheme the vital flow of dollar-earning commodities from that area is in danger of stopping at short notice.

Mr. Creech Jones: Discussions are taking place in London with the interests concerned, whose views will be forwarded to the Malayan Governments for their consideration.

Mr. Fletcher: As no answer has yet been received from the Malayan Government saying that they are in favour of such a scheme, will the Minister put the lightning-like pressure well known to his Department behind the urge to bring this into being?

Mr. Creech Jones: The Malayan Government have been kept fully in touch with this development and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all possible speed will be used in order that conclusions should be reached without delay.

GAMBIA (RICE PRODUCTION)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made to date with the proposal to develop rice production in the Gambia.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Gambia Government have a scheme by which 32 square miles in the neighbourhood of Bathurst, the capital, would be reclaimed from the sea, and about half of this area planted with rice. A Consulting Engineer is now in the Colony examining the reclamation scheme in more detail. The West African Rice Mission has also suggested that a mechanised rice scheme should be tried in the area of McCarthy Island on the middle Gambia river and the Governor who is very anxious to


increase rice production in the Colony is considering whether funds can be found for this.

Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible as yet to give any estimate as to when there will be some results from this scheme to grow food in the Colony; when it will make a real contribution to better nutrition within the Colony; and when there will be an exportable surplus of rice?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped that as a result of this work, 10,000 additional acres will be brought into cultivation, but in the Colony they are, of course, very conscious of the importance of increasing the food supply.

Mr. Erroll: Is not the poultry scheme interfering with the rice scheme?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have not heard that that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA

Agricultural Officers

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many agricultural officers are employed in Tanganyika; what are their salaries; and for what approximate area each officer is responsible.

Mr. Creech Jones: Thirty-three fully qualified agricultural officers are employed in Tanganyika on salaries ranging from £585 to £1,320 per annum. The aim is to have an agricultural officer in charge of each of the 47 Administrative Districts, the areas of which vary from 1,800 to 38,000 square miles, but owing to the shortage of qualified recruits it has not yet been possible to realise this aim.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of suitable persons who might be used to make up this shortage are having a good deal of their time wasted—and there are too many of them—on the groundnut scheme on the other side?

Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot accept that assumption. We are trying to increase the agricultural staff to make good

the deficiency there, but in addition, we have made about 57 additional appointments of assistants to the principal agricultural officer.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what principle is followed in the selection and recruitment of these officers?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is another question, but I can supply the information. They are graduates of a certain standard and they are, of course, in short supply because we did not have the flow out from the universities in the war years.

Dar-es-Salaam Harbour

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether work has now been started on two deep-water berths in Dar-es-Salaam Harbour; and when it is anticipated that these berths will be in operation.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is hoped that the detailed designs will be ready for tendering at the end of April. It is expected that the first berth will be in operation at the end of 1951 and the second in
1952.

Mr. Hare: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether with the completion of these two deep water quays the port of Dar-es-Salaam will be able to cope with a greatly increased amount of traffic, which, presumably, may be expected because of these two berths?

Mr. Creech Jones: As the hon. Member is aware, we have just had a conference in London about all the facilities of the port and the possibilities of development have been under consideration. I think I can give that assurance.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now a time lag of something like four months in the import of urgently-needed consumer goods owing to the priority given to the groundnut scheme? Does he think that as a result of this action it will be possible to reduce that priority?

Mr. Creech Jones: I rather hope that the port will facilitate a rapid flow of goods as they arrive. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those on the spot think these proposals will provide just the facilities that are necessary.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Did the right hon. Gentleman at his meeting in London consider the following alternatives which may give better and quicker results—first, the development of Dar-es-Salaam as a lighterage port, which would provide better, quicker and cheaper facilities; and secondly, extending the railway to Kilindini? There is only about 20 miles difference.

Mr. Creech Jones: Both projects have received very careful consideration. The port will be very largely a lighterage port. As to the railway extension proposed, that is being considered, and we hope it will be carried through.

Railway Rolling-stock

Mr. Hare: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when were indents for rolling-stock replacements first received from the Tanganyikan railways; and how have these requirements been complied with.

Mr. Creech Jones: The first indents for the post-war replacement of wagons and locomotives for the Tanganyika section of the East African Railways were received in 1945. The 61 wagons then ordered were supplied in 1947, and the two locomotives are due for delivery this year. Eight locomotives subsequently applied for were supplied last April.

Mr. Hare: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we shall be able to supply the amount of steel needed in these territories? Is he certain that the Government have given a large enough allotment of steel for providing adequate rolling-stock for the Colonies as a whole?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, we have taken the requirements of transport in Africa very seriously indeed, and I hope we shall get progress with this programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Mass Education

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what plans the Gold Coast Government have formulated for the extension of mass education throughout the country;
(2) what staff and administrative facilities have been allotted to the mass education officer in the Gold Coast.

Mr. Creech Jones: Comprehensive plans have not yet been formulated. An

experimental project in mass education is being carried out in an area of Togoland over a period of six months. In the light of the results of this experiment it is the Government's intention to make plans for the extension of mass education throughout the country. In carrying out this experiment the social development officer has had the assistance of the Social Welfare Department and of the administrative staff in the area concerned.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the extreme dilatoriness of the Gold Coast Government in all its dealings with mass education?

Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot accept the assumption that there has been dilatoriness. We have done everything possible to stimulate an active interest in the problem of mass education. I think that on the Gold Coast some interesting work has already been done.

Mr. Donner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this extension of mass education will be accompanied by the provision of suitable religious literature in adequate quantities, otherwise the new literates will only create a demand for a yellow Press of the worst possible kind?

Mr. Creech Jones: The question of the supply of literature comes in a later Question, I think, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I recognise the importance of additional literature.

Dr. Segal: How many mass education officers have been allotted to the northern territories?

Mr. Creech Jones: That is a different question. If I am given notice of it, I will answer it.

New Immigration Procedure

Sir Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware of the indignation which has been caused by the terms of Gazette Notice No. 192 published in the "Gold Coast Gazette" on 1st February in which it is stated that there is to be revised immigration procedure which will apply, irrespective of nationality or race to British subjects as well as aliens; and what consultations took place before this procedure was announced;
(2) whether he is aware that under the new immigration procedure in the Gold Coast owners or partners in businesses or professions in the Gold Coast will now have to obtain re-entry permits before they leave that territory and that any new partners in a firm will have to show that the expansion of the business is in the economic interest of the Gold Coast before getting a permit to go there; and whether, in view of the unfortunate effect which these limitations will have on the proper development of the Gold Coast by private British interests, he will arrange for their reconsideration;
(3) whether he has approved the new ordinance in the Gold Coast under which wives accompanying their husbands to that territory will not be allowed to undertake any employment without the permission of the Gold Coast Government.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that under the new immigration procedure being applied ill the Gold Coast the children of British persons working there will not necessarily be permitted to stay after they have reached the age of 16, after which age they will be considered as if they were new immigrants and therefore on the same footing as aliens wishing to visit the colony; and whether he has approved such arrangements;
(2) whether he is aware that the new immigration procedure announced for the Gold Coast may oblige British subjects who go as temporary visitors to the Gold Coast to make a deposit or enter into a Bond and that conditions will be imposed preventing them from undertaking any employment locally; and whether he has approved such arrangements.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware of the points raised by hon. Members, but as they all bear on a matter of general policy I will state briefly the reasons why the Gold Coast Government has taken the action to which the Questions relate.
It is the settled policy of His Majesty's Government, in the Gold Coast as in other West African Territories, that the advancement of the African peoples shall be safeguarded not only in the political sphere, but also in the economic field, into which the African is now entering in increasing numbers with the growth of

education. There is strong political feeling on this subject in the Gold Coast, and it is right that the Government should pay due regard to it.
There is nothing new in applying the Immigration Law in a Colonial Territory to immigrants from all countries or to providing in the law that the economic background of an intended immigrant, whether British or foreign, shall be examined in order to ensure that his intended occupation shall not conflict with the interests of the inhabitants. It was in accordance with this principle that the Gold Coast Government amended their immigration law in September of last year, with my agreement, to enable them to control the immigration of persons whose intended occupation might prove detrimental to the economic development of the inhabitants of the Gold Coast. In consequence of this amendment a directive was given by the Government to the immigration authorities and the Gazette Notice which is now in question is no more than a notification to the general public of the substance of that directive and the manner in which it will be operated. The terms of this Notice were referred to my Department before it was issued.
The Notice clearly states that it is not intended to apply the procedure in such a manner as to prevent private enterprise from playing a useful part in the development of the Gold Coast in spheres which the indigenous population is unwilling or unqualified to enter. Private businesses, firms and mining companies have played a great part in the development of the Territory; they have a great part to play in the future, and it is not in the interests of the Gold Coast, nor is it the intention of the Gold Coast Government, to make things difficult for them.
I understand that difficulties are felt in regard to the machinery by which the control is to be operated and in particular the quota system. 1 have little doubt that the Government decided to adopt this system in the belief that it would be less inconvenient to the firms concerned than a separate examination of each individual case. I am however asking the Acting Governor to consider the procedure further in the light of the criticisms which have been made and to discuss it with the interests concerned on the spot,


if they so wish, in order to avoid interference with the conduct of their business. I shall also of course be glad to transmit to the Acting Governor any representations which may be made to me.

Sir P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he has given approval to this extraordinary document which I have in my hand; why it is not signed and who is responsible for it? What is the status of this immigration officer who is supposed to be responsible for operating this extraordinary directive, and is the directive in accordance with the British Nationality Act, which gives a British subject status not only in Great Britain but in the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Creech Jones: This is an indication of no new principle so far as nationality is concerned. If I can remember all the Questions which I have been asked—which I cannot—I would only say that it gives approval for the amending legislation. The paper referred to does not contain the regulations issued but is an indication to the public of how certain regulations are likely to apply and these, of course, were referred to my Department, but they did not call for my approval.

Captain Crowder: Is there any precedent for treating British subjects who want to go to the Gold Coast, as aliens?

Mr. Creech Jones: They are not treated as aliens. This discrimination does occur over quite a period in a great deal of Colonial legislation in regard to immigration.

Mr. Stanley: Was not the whole purpose of one Clause of the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman's Government this summer to establish a common citizenship between citizens of the United Kingdom and of the Colonial territory, and in these circumstances how can there be discrimination between United Kingdom citizens entering into British Colonies, and how is it that they are not treated on the same lines as the other citizens?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is for this reason, among a number of reasons, that I have asked the Acting Governor of the Gold Coast to give this matter further consideration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does this new immigration procedure apply to Africans from Sierra Leone and Nigeria, and is this not rather strange at a time when closer union is in all our minds?

Mr. Creech Jones: It relates to all immigration into the Gold Coast. The primary purpose is to defend the economic interest of Africans, the indigenous inhabitants of the territories. I am very much concerned lest the new regulations interfere with normal trade and commerce and development of the territories, and for that reason I have asked that this matter should be looked at again.

Mr. George Wigg: Will my right hon. Friend make available in the Library a copy of the directive and of the Gazette Notice No. 192? It seems that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have a considerable advantage over hon. Members on this side, in that they have possession of them and we have not.

Mr. Creech Jones: The actual instructions to the immigration officers have not yet been received in this country. What has been received is a copy of the "Gazette." What information is available shall be put in the Library.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact that this ordinance prohibits the wives of business men in this Colony from taking up employment without permission, but imposes no similar restriction upon the wives of officials? If that is so, what is the reason for that discrimination?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think there is some misunderstanding in regard to that particular point in the proposed regulations. In order to make doubly certain that our view in London is the right one, this is one of the points which we are referring to the Acting Governor.

Sir P. Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no such document as the one I hold in my hand is ever introduced again in any Colony without being signed? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] It says:
Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary. Published by Authority.
It is unsigned, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies does not know who is responsible for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is responsible for


it? Will he find out who is responsible for this document and tell the House of Commons?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that the paper was issued by the Gold Coast Government and that undoubtedly it is an authoritative statement by the Gold Coast Government.

Sir P. Macdonald: Why is it not signed?

Mr. Creech Jones: It must be remembered that in London I cannot control every detail of the actions of Colonial Governments, and indeed it would be folly of me to attempt to do so.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether similar discrimination against Gold Coast subjects coming into this country is to be imposed?

Mr. Keeling: In view of the big interests and investments of France and America in British West Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether their Governments were consulted, because these regulations apply to their citizens?

Mr. Creech Jones: I can only say that the amending of the original ordinance was a matter entirely within the discretion of the Gold Coast Government and myself. The regulations which are to be made will be made under that ordinance.

Mr. Erroll: In promulgating this ordinance, are not the Government pandering to a small section of extremist opinion and acting against the interests of Gold Coast natives as a whole?

Mr. Creech Jones: I would not take that view myself. The purpose of the Amendment to the law is to meet the rising demand among Africans themselves that they should play a larger part in economic life and economic control in their own territory.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Local Projects (Funds)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the funds at the disposal of Nigerian district officers for encouraging local projects have increased in recent years; and whether, in view of the good use to which

such funds have been and can be put, the amounts at the disposal of officers will be increased.

Mr. Creech Jones: A scheme giving wider financial discretion in this matter to administrative officers is being brought into operation in Nigeria. I have recently made it clear to all Colonial Governments in Africa that I should warmly welcome any scheme for encouraging local projects and giving greater initiative to the district staffs.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it mean that, in fact, sums of money now at the disposal of district officers will be increased shortly, so that they will be able to increase the sums for these various projects?

Mr. Creech Jones: Certain restrictive financial arrangements are being removed.

Male Nurses (Accommodation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to improve the living accommodation for male nurses and their families attached to Nigerian hospitals; and what plans exists to provide adequate accommodation for these nurses.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor for information, and will write to my hon. Friend when I have his reply.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the accommodation for these male nurses leaves much to be desired? Could not action be taken beforehand to provide them with proper accommodation?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think my hon. Friend will find that point covered by the information which I propose to send him.

Books (Supply)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to encourage and secure a substantial increase in the number of suitable books for Nigerian reading rooms and schools, particularly non-technical or scholastic.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Nigerian Government, acting through the Education and Public Relations Departments, are doing a great deal to increase the supply


of general reading material. Their efforts are being supplemented by the Caskiya Corporation, which controls the Hausa Literature Bureau, and by the
native administrations. The British Council and the Carnegie Corporation are also making important and most welcome contributions to this work.

Mr. Sorensen: While I appreciate what the Caskiya Corporation has been doing, may I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not a fact that in many parts of Nigeria there is an appalling lack of suitable literature, apart from technical literature? Will he take steps to see that more suitable books of a general nature are provided for the reading rooms and schools of Nigeria?

Mr. Creech Jones: There is a good deal going on in the way of providing books, and the native authorities have funds for this purpose.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the books are dog-eared, and are scarcely readable?

ST. HELENA (LABOURERS' PAY)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the average rate of pay for general labourers employed by the Government of St. Helena; and what is the rate of relief for a married man with two or more children if unemployed.

Mr. Creech Jones: The present standard rate of pay for general labourers employed by the Government of St. Helena is 3s. 5d. per day; and the relief rate for an unemployed man with reasonably large family commitments is 2s. 8d. per diem for a week of five working days, with a minimum of 2s. 3d. per diem for a single man. The Governor has submitted proposals for increasing these rates, which are now under examination.

Mr. Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that people can live on those amounts, considering the high cost of living, as almost all foodstuffs have to be imported? Has the Colonial Office any plans for doing something to increase the general level of prosperity of the island?

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, the island has received a great deal of consideration in the Colonial Development and Welfare plans. Proposals for increasing the economic activities in the island have been endorsed, and I hope that as a result some means of employment will be found.

Mr. Mellish: In view of the fact that the salaries of the men are so shockingly low what are the rates for women?

Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot say without notice.

UGANDA (COTTON INDUSTRY)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the disclosures of widespread theft by ginners and their African cotton buyers in Uganda, with a resultant annual loss to the growers estimated at £600,000, it is intended that the Government shall assume the responsibility of buying the crop and thereafter selling the quotas to the ginners; and whether the fund derived from the export cess is sufficient to enable this change of system to be instituted.

Mr. Creech Jones: I hope to receive shortly the proposals of the Uganda Government arising out of this and other suggestions made by the Uganda Cotton Industry Commission.

Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the recommendations of the Commission are really only a repeat of those of the Commission held many years ago when a similar state of affairs was shown to exist?

Mr. Creech Jones: I was not aware that this was a repeat of a previous Commission, but the losses stated are much higher than is the actual case, I think. The local Government are taking the necessary measures to cope with this difficult situation.

Mr. W. Fletcher: If the British Government intervene without curing the ill locally, will they not merely transfer the loss to the taxpayers here without curing the evil?

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the prefatory statement by the Government of Uganda


to the Report of the Cotton Industry Commission in which it is alleged as a deplorable fact that dishonest practices and fraudulent transactions are prevalent throughout Uganda; whether he has been furnished with evidence to substantiate the allegation; and if he will institute an inquiry.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed that the allegations of dishonest practices and fraudulent transactions are supported by an analysis of the cases in the Uganda courts. I am satisfied that the Uganda Government, and particularly the police and judiciary, are doing everything possible to check and discourage dishonest practices, and I do not consider that a special inquiry will be necessary.

GROUNDNUT SCHEME, WEST AFRICA

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what quantities, respectively, of groundnuts grown in West Africa have been delivered in the United Kingdom, are in transit and remain in store awaiting transport at Kano and other centres.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply contains a number of figures and place names I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the rate of railing of these groundnuts to the coast is being kept up to schedule or not?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think that the schedule is being observed, and I hope that the last remnants of the 1947–48 crop will have reached the coast within a few months.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the reduced production of groundnuts last season, compared with the previous season, was due to a smaller yield per acre or to a smaller acreage of cultivation?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not due to a smaller acreage of cultivation. I think that it is due to climatic reasons.

Following is the reply:

The table below gives the figures required in respect of the last two crops in tons of decorticated groundnuts, as at 3rd February, 1949:


—
Northern Nigeria
River area (Upper Niger/Benus)
Gambia (a)
Total


1947–48 Crop Delivered in U.K.
203,000
11,000
49,500
263,500


In Transit
36,000
3,700
—
39,700


Up Country
76,000
—
—
76,000


Total purchased
315,000
14,700
49,500
379,200


1948–49 Crop Delivered in U.K.
4,000
—
—
4,000


In Transit
14,000
1,750
21,500
37,250


Up Country
262,000
9,500
19,000
290,500


Total purchased (b)
280,000
11,250
40,500
331,750

NOTES:
(a) Gambia groundnuts are normally shipped undecorticated, but for the purposes of this table the figures have been converted to decorticated equivalent.

(b) Purchases of the 1948–49 crop are not yet complete.

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to give the tonnage figure of groundnuts now stored at Kano and other West African centres of the 1947–48 harvest that have become infested by the larvae of a beetle Trogaderma Sp.; and whether, in view of the damage being done, it is intended to give immediate instructions that absolute priority shall be given to clear the stocks that remain unaffected but vulnerable to attack.

Mr. Creech Jones: Investigation has shown that so far stores containing some 11,500 tons of groundnuts, all at Kano, are so infested. Arrangements are being made to fumigate these nuts before they are railed; the amount actually lost cannot yet be estimated, but is not likely to be large. Priority for railing is being given to stocks surrounding those infested; spraying with insecticides is also being carried out.

Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is going to bear this severe loss? The stocks at Kano are reported to be deteriorating at the rate of 1 per cent. The loss is now over 11,000 tons, and I understand that there is not a single


groundnut fit to sell. Will the native grower have to suffer this loss, or will it be borne by the Ministry of Food and the British taxpayer?

Mr. Creech Jones: I must have notice of that Question as to how the losses will be covered. I would point out that this particular species of insect had not previously been known to attack groundnuts.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that this beetle was reported in groundnuts some years ago and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department was warned then that if the groundnuts were not moved with greater facility, this kind of destruction might occur. Is it not a fact that these nuts are being kept there as a monument to, Socialist planning?

Mr. Creech Jones: I think the hon. Member is completely confused in regard to this matter. This does not arise from the problem of stacking the groundnuts for railing. It arises from the operations of a new insect, and scientists are working on this problem without delay. It may be that a great quantity of nuts already affected will be restored for normal use.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a pity to put temptation in the way of these hitherto harmless insects by leaving 70,000 tons of groundnuts lying about for over a year?

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Are not these stocks the property of British trading companies in Kano, and is it not their responsibility to see that the nuts are kept in proper condition? Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty in transporting these nuts to the coast arises from the neglect of the railways in Nigeria under previous administration?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is two-and-a-half years since questions were asked by me and others about the stocks accumulating, and does he not think that it is now a question of "Weevil be to him who weevil does."

BARBADOS ASSEMBLY DEBATE (ALLEGATION)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to reports of a

debate in the Barbados House of Assembly during which the allegation was made that a highly placed Colonial official had referred in offensive terms to a coloured member of the Executive Council; if any inquiry has been made into the matter; and whether the official in question is still serving in the Colony.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor of Barbados has informed me that there is no foundation whatsoever for the allegation made in debate in the House of Assembly, on 27th December, last, that a member of Executive Committee had been referred to in offensive terms by a senior Government official. The member who made the allegation has been repeatedly asked by the official concerned to give particulars of the time and place of the alleged utterance, but has consistently refused to do so. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. John Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any official record is kept of the proceedings of the Barbados House of Assembly?

Mr. Creech Jones: Official records are kept, but I cannot say without notice whether they are shorthand records.

Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allegation was printed in the official record as kept by the local newspaper, as is the case in many of the West Indian Islands?

Mr. Creech Jones: I have no information on that matter.

MALTA (EDITOR, PROSECUTION)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make available in the Library a full report of the recent decision of the Criminal Court of Appellate Jurisdiction of Malta in the Royal University Council case, together with a list of the previous convictions for libel against Mr. J. J. Scorey, the Editor of the "Malta Bulletin" newspaper.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am prepared to make the report of the judgment available in the Library as soon as I receive a copy from Malta. I am not however ready to provide a list of previous convictions.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the misleading report in some sections of the Press about this case, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the criminal proceedings against Mr. Scorey were instituted not by the Governor of Malta, but by the Prime Minister acting through the police? Will he also confirm that there are five previous convictions against this editor.

Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that the answer to the second part of the supplementary question is in the affirmative. I would also say that the prosecution was not initiated by the Governor of Malta but through the normal machinery of Government there, at the instance of the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Ordnance Inspection

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the terms of reference of the Madden Committee; when this committee was formed; and when it concluded its final report.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): This Committee was set up in December, 1946, and completed its report in April, 1948. Its terms of reference were, broadly, to review the structure and organisation of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Pool, the sources and conditions of recruitment of its officers and their remuneration and terms of service.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Has any action been taken upon the recommendations of that Committee?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, and very careful consideration is being given to it. No final decision has yet been made.

Commander Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the difference in pay between an officer in the Royal Navy who is serving ashore and a Lieut.-Commander with two years in, who is serving—

Mr. Speaker: The Question relates only to the terms of reference and other general matters and not to details.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there

is a great deal of dissatisfaction about terms and conditions in this department? Will he consider publishing a White Paper so as to give further information to the House on the matter?

Electrical Engineering (Civilian Staff)

Mr. Channon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why, as the decision to employ naval instead of civilian personnel in the Directorate of Electrical Engineering was taken three years ago, it has not yet been found possible to give the staff side of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council any indication of the steps to be taken; and when he will give such information.

Mr. W. Edwards: The decision to which the hon. Member refers related to the introduction of an Electrical Branch into the Royal Navy, and was one of general principle only, requiring, as the staff side of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council were informed, much further investigation and consultation before any concrete scheme could be produced. As I told the hon. Member on 15th December last, there have already been preliminary discussions with the Staff side, and I hope, though I cannot promise, that more detailed information will be given to them fairly soon.

H.M.S. "Implacable"

Mr. Keeling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make a statement about the future of H.M.S. "Implacable," which as a French 74-gun ship of the line engaged H.M.S. "Victory" at Trafalgar, was captured a few days later, and is the only man-of-war except H.M.S. "Victory" which fought at Trafalgar and is still in existence.

Mr. W. Edwards: The possibility is being examined of preserving this ship at Greenwich as part of a development scheme prepared by the London County Council.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the very serious shortage of firewood in France, would it not be possible to send—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Austin.

Aircraft Inspectorate

Mr. Austin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the composition of the Naval Inspection Service in terms of naval personnel and civilians; what liaison exists between this branch and the Aeronautic Inspection Department; what are the terms of training; and if he is fully satisfied that all considerations of safety and efficiency in the Naval Air Arm are adequately met in this connection.

Mr. W. Edwards: There are in the Naval Aircraft Inspectorate 13 Naval officers, nine ratings, 17 non-industrial civilian technicians and 293 civilian industrial examiners and viewers. All members of the Inspectorate are trained at the R.A.F. Aeronautical Inspection Service Training Course. As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 12th February, 1947. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

"Ditty Box" (Publication)

Commander Maitland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the publication of "Ditty Box" has been discontinued.

Mr. W. Edwards: Publication of the "Ditty Box" was discontinued as a result of a serious fall in circulation and consequent financial loss. To cover the loss on production costs alone, it would have been necessary to have trebled the sales.

Commander Maitland: Is it not a fact that several commercial firms were prepared to push this paper with the Admiralty, and at no public expense? Is it not also a fact that the editor of "Ditty Box" was not consulted before action was taken?

Mr. Edwards: So far as commercial firms are concerned, I do not think it is completely correct to say that they were prepared to undertake the publication of "Ditty Box" without any charge falling on public funds. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it was because of financial circumstances that the Admiralty decided that it was inadvisable to go on with the publication, despite what the editor may have thought.

Magnetic Station, Abinger (Masts)

Mr. Touche: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty for what purpose it is proposed to erect further masts in the neighbourhood of the Magnetic Station at Abinger; what is to be the height of the masts; and whether the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been consulted regarding the erection and location.

Mr. W. Edwards: No further masts are being erected at this Admiralty station. What is being done is to replace two existing 78-foot masts, which in their present position are stated to interfere with agriculture, by a single mast, which will be 100 feet high. The Ministry of Town and, Country Planning are aware of this proposal and have no objection.

Mr. Touche: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministry of Town and Country Planning were consulted?

Mr. Edwards: We have been in communication with the Ministry—since the Question was put down actually—and we understand that they have no objection. This is a matter of one mast being erected in the place of two.

Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the fact that the whole of the Greenwich Observatory, including the Magnetic Station at Abinger are to be moved to Herstmonceux, why should any further construction proceed in this very attractive corner of Surrey?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that the move will take some time to accomplish and that the Admiralty will require this station for some time yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk Registration

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Food at what date this spring he contemplates offering consumers a further opportunity of changing their milk retailer.

Mr. Binns: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make arrangements for customers to change their milk retailer.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): Yes Sir. All domestic consumers


and catering establishments will be given the opportunity at the time of the mass issue of ration books next April and May to change their milk retailers if they wish to do so. There will, however, be no compulsory re-registration for milk except in the case of expectant mothers and children up to five who receive supplies of milk under the Welfare Food Service.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this operation was carried out last Spring it resulted in a great increase in the use of petrol, tyres, vehicles and distributive manpower for very little benefit to the consumer? Why are we going on with it?

Dr. Summerskill: Because it is of importance that the housewife should be allowed to exercise her choice.

Mr. Drayson: Will the right hon. Lady agree that she should abolish milk rationing altogether now because there is plenty of milk about?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Eire Cattle (Imports)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to increase the cattle imports from Eire, with special regard to the supplies of cattle from Eire which are being shipped to the Continent, because of the higher prices obtainable there than those ruling in this country.

Dr. Summerskill: The steps which we have taken are that we have come to an agreement with the Government of Eire to the effect that the export of Eire cattle to the Continent shall in future be limited to 10 per cent. of total export. There has recently been some improvement in imports of stores compared with a year ago. As to fat cattle we are satisfied that the prices we offer are sufficient to attract cattle from Eire.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Lady aware that countless homes throughout the country are having meatless days? The Government cannot disclaim responsibility for this. Is not this one of the most preposterous muddles ever known in the history of any Government?

Office, Bangor (Staff)

Mr. Price-White: asked the Minister of Food how many redundancy notices

have been served upon the temporary staff at the Bangor-Ogwen area food office at Bangor since 1st January, 1948; whether the posts of any of such temporary staff have or are intended to be filled by established civil servants; and what are the ages and experience of any replacements concerned.

Dr. Summerskill: One temporary officer has been served with a redundancy notice. He is being replaced by a newly established civil servant, aged 17, who has had no previous experience in a food office. It is our policy to introduce a number of established officers into the regional organisation of the Ministry.

Mr. Price-White: Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that as a matter of staff policy it is not the intention of the Ministry to dispense with persons, particularly ex-Service men, who have been in this work for some time and to replace them with young girls who have just come from school and secretarial college and have no experience?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has not fully informed himself of the facts. This girl of 17 has passed the appropriate Civil Service examination. The young man had every opportunity of doing so—it was brought to his notice—but he failed to do so. I therefore think that it was quite fair that he should be replaced.

Canned Fish Cargo (Supervision)

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Food why at least 12 cars each carrying two officials of his Department in addition to a considerable ground staff of other officials were necessary in the Liverpool docks on 9th February to supervise the unloading and warehousing of a cargo of Russian canned fish; what the total number of officials employed was; and whether he will in future make economies in such cases.

Dr. Summerskill: It is sometimes desirable to supervise the unloading and warehousing of valuable cargo. To do so in this case necessitated the use of 38 officers and 12 cars working on a shift basis.

Mr. Fraser: I could not hear the right hon. Lady. Did she say 48 officers?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir—38.

Mr. Fraser: If it was an investigation, surely it would have been much better if the officers had ridden on the lorry instead of using Government transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "And petrol."]—and drawing to the attention of the criminals concerned to the fact that an investigation was taking place?

Dr. Summerskill: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands what happened. These men were there to prevent pilfering. This is not a new feature of our Department. We have supervised the unloading of eight vessels in the same way this year.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Lady say why the safeguarding of these stores could safely be left to a £2 10s. a week watchman at the weekend?

Dr. Summerskill: That was the rate of wages when the hon. Gentleman's Government was in power.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Lady say what was the nature of the fish which made this cargo so particularly valuable and which could not be protected by the police?

Dr. Summerskill: Canned crab.

Mr. Churchill: Is it a fact that 12 cars carrying two officials each had to supervise all this business?

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There were 38 officers and 12 cars. It was a very large cargo and the unloading went on for something like 13 days.

Mr. Churchill: I suppose that the right hon. Lady realises that it is not rich people's money which she is squandering but the money raised by severe taxation from the whole mass of the people of the country?

Dr. Sununerskill: I recognise something which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not recognised, and that is that we are protecting the food of the poorest people.

Mr. Churchill: That may explain the motive but it in no way excuses the extravagance and waste.

Officials (Payments)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food how many officials of his Department are in receipt of retaining fees from private firms.

Dr. Summerskill: Officers on loan to my Department from private firms undertake not to favour, or to exercise executive control of any food business, so there is no question of retaining fees in the accepted sense. But their previous employers may make up the difference between their official salaries and their previous salaries. I do not know in how many cases this is done.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this system has placed many of her officials in the very difficult position of having to serve two masters at the same time? Is she aware that it was recently reported in a newspaper that one of her officers had said that he was in receipt of a retaining fee of £300 a year to look after the interests of the Union Cold Storage Company? What action is her Department taking to end this system?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must realise that when my Department was set up it was necessary to obtain at short notice men who were experienced in their own fields and therefore we asked various firms in the country which were highly respected for their work to allow us to have their officials to help us for a period. These men are, of course, temporary. In this case the man has served us very well for seven years. We have not had any reason to suspect that he has shown partiality to his former employers. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are now making the most careful inquiries and are asking this man to make a statement, and if we are not satisfied, we shall take appropriate action.

Mr. Osborne: Does this mean that the Government are paying sweated wages?

East African Groundnut Scheme

Mr. Hare: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement as to how far he is consulted as to the future cropping programme of groundnuts and alternative crops in the African territories where the groundnut scheme is operating.

Dr. Summerskill: The Corporation determine their cropping programme in the light of agricultural considerations and of the demand for the different kind of foodstuffs which they can produce. With my right hon. Friend's concurrence they consult him only as to our requirements of each type of produce.

Mr. Hare: Does not the right hon. Lady consider that her right hon. Friend should have some greater say in the amount of crops to be grown of certain types in these schemes in East Africa; and does not she realise that the country and the House of Commons are gravely concerned with what is going on there at the moment?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend does have sufficient say, so far as his own particular work is concerned. We were asked, for instance, whether sunflower seed would be an acceptable oil seed in this country. We were advised that it would. Then, having given that information, we had to leave it to the Corporation to decide how much they would plant and when it should be planted.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the overriding interest in the cropping programme should be the possibilities of soil erosion and not the question of what oils her Department requires?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is taken into consideration.

DISTILLING INDUSTRY (BARLEY)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food how soon he proposes to open his discussions with the Scotch Whisky Association regarding the question of future allocations of barley to the distilling industry, having regard to the substantial amount of barley now on the market and to the urgent need of the industry for increased supplies.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is meeting representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association early next week.

OFFICIAL REPORT (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to an entry in the OFFICIAL REPORT today which I think will require correction. It is in Column 1018, and the entry is made there, about three parts down the column, "Amendment negatived." The Amendment in question was that moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow (Commander Galbraith), in column 991, and the Minister, at column 993, said he would be prepared to accept this Amendment though he was not prepared to accept subsequent Amendments, which was stated in column 994. The Question, I think, was put by the Deputy-Chairman and was agreed to by the Committee, and the Amendment was, in fact, made but the OFFICIAL REPORT indicates that the Amendment was not made.
We are fortunate in having also "The Times" report of this which gives, I think, the accurate statement. It says:
The first amendment, permitting a landlord to appear before a tribunal, was agreed to. The second amendment was negatived by 269 votes to 97.
I think the confusion may have arisen owing to the growing practice of including a number of Amendments in one discussion, and subsequently dividing upon them separately, but I put it to you, Sir, that it would be well that this incorrect statement should be put right.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the mere fact that he has raised that point will automatically put the matter right. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it was a mistake in the Official Report. HANSARD is not an official report. It is, I hope, as accurate an account of our proceedings as possible. The official report is one which it is my duty, the House remembers, by Resolution passed at the beginning of every Session, to peruse daily. I did peruse the official report, which is the accurate one, and it says "Another Amendment made," which is the correct wording. Therefore, officially the Amendment is correct and in order, and I hope that what I have said, and what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, will ensure that the matter is put right in HANSARD.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is desirable that it should be put right in this perhaps less official report, but one which is accepted as very accurate by the majority of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I do my best to see that HANSARD is as accurate as possible, but one cannot always ensure, in difficult circumstances, that it is quite accurate.

Earl Winterton: May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is obviously a mistake in the description Of HANSARD, because it is always published as the "Official Report." In view of what you have said, perhaps you will call the attention of the Editor to the fact that it is not the official report?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that fact. There is no question about it. HANSARD is not the official report. This is the official record—the Votes and Proceedings—which I have in my hand.

BILLS PRESENTED

LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL

Mr. Speaker: "to establish new tribunals to determine in place of official arbitrators and others certain questions relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land and other matters, to amend the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, with respect to the failure to deliver a notice of claim,

and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Woodburn, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First Time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

SUPERANNUATION BILL

"to amend the law relating to the superannuation and other benefits payable to and in respect of persons who serve or have served in the civil service of the State or in service to which the Superannuation (Various Services) Act, 1938, applies or are existing Irish officers within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920; to authorise the payment of annual allowances and gratuities to and in respect of persons who are injured or contract diseases while employed in a civil capacity for the purposes of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First time; to be read read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes. 257; Noes, 121.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[3.39 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Deer, G.


Albu, A. H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Burke, W. A.
Dodds, N. N.


Alpass, J. H
Byers, Frank
Driberg, T. E. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Carmichael, James
Dumpleton, C. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Attewell, H. C
Champion, A. J.
Edelman. M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Chetwynd, G. R
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)


Awbery, S. S.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Ayles, W. H.
Coldrick, W
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Collindridge, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Bacon, Miss A.
Colman, Miss. G. M.
Ewart, R.


Balfour, A.
Cooper, G
Fairhurst, F.


Barton, C.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fernyhough, E.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cove, W. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crawley, A.
Follick, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Cullen, Miss
Foot, M. M.


Binns, J.
Daggar, G.
Forman, J C.


Blackburn, A. R
Daines, P.
Fraser, T (Hamilton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Bramall, E A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gibbins, J


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, S. O, (Merthyr)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)




Granville, E. (Eye)
McKinlay, A. S
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Grey, C. F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sharp, Granville


Grierson, E.
McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, p


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Gunter, R. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Guy. W. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Skeffington, A. M.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Skinnard, F. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil
Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, H N (Nottingham, S.)


Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hardman, D. R.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Snow, J. W.


Hardy, E. A.
Medland, H. M.
Solley, L. J.


Harrison, J.
Mellish, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W


Haworth, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Mikardo, Ian
Stamford, W.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Holman, P
Monslow, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, S


Horabin, T. L.
Morley, R.
Sylvester, G. O


Hoy, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Hubbard, T.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnot)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Murray, J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Naylor, T. E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F, E. (Brentford)
Timmons, J.


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Titterington, M. F.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
O'Brien, T.
Tolley, L.


Jenkins, R. H.
Oliver, G. H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Johnston, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Usborne, Henry


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)
Vernon, Maj. W F.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wadsworth, G.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Parker, J.
Walker, G. H.


Keenan, W.
Parkin, B. T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Kenyon, C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)


King, E, M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Watkins, T. E.


Kinghorn, Sqn. -Ldt. E.
Pearson, A.
Watson, W. M.


Kinley, J.
Piratin, P.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Kirby, B V.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wells, W. (Walsall)


Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
West, D. G.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Price, M. Philips
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Lee F. (Hulme)
Pritt, D. N.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Leslie, J. R.
Pryde, D. J.
Wigg, George


Levy, B. W.
Pursey, Comdr. H
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Ranger, J.
Williams, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Reeves, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Lipson, D. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rhodes, H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Williams, E.


Longden, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wills, Mrs E. A.


McAdam, W.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)
Woods, G. S.


McEntee, V. La T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Yates, V. F.


McGhee, H. G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McGovern, J
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



Mack, J. D.
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Scollan, T.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Segal, Dr. S





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Gabraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Birch, Nigel
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gammans, L. D


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Darling, Sri W. Y.
Glyn, Sir R.


Boothby, R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bossom, A. C.
De la Bère, R
Grimston, R. V.


Bower, N.
Digby, S. W.
Hannom, Sir P. (Moseley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Donner, P. W.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Head, Brig. A. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Drayson, G. B
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C


Challen, C
Drewe, C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Channon, H.
Eccles, D. M
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Elliot, Lieut. Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hollis, M C.


Clarke Col. R S.
Erroll, F. J
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (E[...]n'gh, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Jarvis, Sir J.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.







Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Keeling, E. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Molson, A. H. E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Langford-Holt, J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Nicholson, G
Teeling, William


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Osborne, C
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Linstead, H. N.
Peto, Brig. C. H M
Thomas, J P. (Hereford)


Lucas, Major. Sir J.
Pickthorn, K.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Price-White, Lt.-Col D.
Touche, G C.


McCallum, Maj. D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Vane, W M F.


Macdonald, Sir P (I. Of Wight)
Ramsay, Maj. S
Ward Hon. G. R.


McFarlane, C. S
Renton, D.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset. E.)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roberts H. (Handsworth)
Williams C. (Torquay)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts P G. (Ecclesall)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Robinson, Roland
Young Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


MacLeod, J.
Savory, Prof. D L.



Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Scott, Lord W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Major Conant and


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Smithers, Sir W.
Mr. Studholme.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress 15th February].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(VARIATION OF STANDARD RENTS FIXED BY REFERENCE TO NEW LETTINGS.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 43, at the end, to add:
(7) Where the rent reserved under the terms of a contract of tenancy is reduced under this Section such contract of tenancy shall be deemed to have been terminated upon the making of the determination and the tenant shall he deemed to retain posession of such dwelling-house thereafter by virtue of the provisions of the principal Acts."—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Question again proposed. "That those words be there added."

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: The argument of the Minister of Health upon this Amendment was that the rent tribunal would have assessed the new rent on the basis of its being a contractual tenancy. He then said that, if the Amendment were carried and a contractual tenancy were turned into a statutory tenancy, that would be unfair to the tenant because the rent tribunal would have fixed the rent on the basis of its being a contractual tenancy, and that that was one of the circumstances which the tribunal would have taken into account. That, I think, represents fairly the Minister's argument as reported in the "unofficial" Report.
That argument, however, contains a fallacy, for, if the Amendment were carried, the tribunal would know that the reduction of rent would turn a contractual tenancy into a statutory tenancy. That is one of the circumstances it would take into account. It would be quite imaginative on the part of the tribunal to deal with a contractual tenancy which they knew was being turned into a statutory tenancy and then to say, "We are not paying attention to that. It is not one of the circumstances we take into account and, therefore, we have formed a rent on the basis that it is a contractual tenancy." That example shows how

desirable it is to specify to the tribunal the circumstances which they should take into account.
Apparently, had the Minister been in the Chair at this imaginary tribunal—supposing the Amendment is accepted—he would have said, "Oh, no. The tenant gets the advantage of a contractual tenancy. Therefore, we fix his rent at x pounds a year," knowing perfectly well that the Act, if amended, would have turned the rent into that of a statutory tenancy. That attitude must be a fallacy. How can a tribunal be deemed to decide according to all the circumstances of the case and not take into account the very effect of their decision? This shows that one of the Minister's arguments against the Amendment is ill-founded.
I agree that, in one sense, there are differences and disadvantages between a contractual and a statutory tenancy. We on this side, however, say that if the tenant has gone to the tribunal and has invoked a reduction of the contractual rent payable, then it shall be on the same footing as that of a statutory tenant, because he has invoked the powers of the rent tribunal and the whole machinery of the Rent Restrictions Acts; and it would have been thought, quite rightly, that in that case the statutory tenant has sufficient protection. He has the protection of Section 15 of the 1920 Act, which gives him all the advantages arid conditions of the former tenancy.
It is very significant that the Minister of Health should think that a tribunal sitting to decide how much a rent should be should disregard the state of the law under which the tribunal is sitting. In other words, if he thinks that a rent tribunal deciding the amount of a rent will pay no attention to the fact that it is to be turned into a statutory tenancy, I can well imagine another chairman taking a different view. We have always felt there should be some guidance for these chairmen to lay down the rules on which they should decide. Otherwise the Minister of Health and the chairmen would fall into the same error and disregard some of the cases he is so fond of quoting.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I supported the Amendment which provided that some guidance should be given tribunals in reaching their


decisions, but I do not think this Amendment has anything to do with that. The point is that by reason of the reference the tenancy is changed from a contractual to a statutory tenancy. To decide whether that is so, we have to look at the essential difference between a contractual tenancy and a statutory tenancy. The essential difference is that in a statutory tenancy the landlord can take steps to evict a tenant without giving notice to quit. Why should the tenant who has invoked his rights under the Act be deprived of the protection of the notice to quit and given a lower grade, a more personal kind of tenancy? For that reason I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Member realise that in many contractual tenancies no notice to quit is necessary?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, but notice to quit is always necessary when a contractual tenancy is still in being.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think this matter was explored quite sufficiently last night and there is no reason why we should repeat what was said last night. I cannot understand why if a tenant has applied to the tribunal and the tribunal have decided that the rent should be reduced as in the case mentioned in the Amendment, the tenant should lose whatever rights there might be under the contractual tenancy. That seems quite unfair. In any case, one would assume that if the tribunal take into account the fact that the contractual tenancy should cease to exist that itself would be expressed in the rent. The landlord would lose in that way. It can be taken into account the other way and I should think it much better for the tribunal to assess what the reasonable rent would be in the light of the contractual

tenancy remaining and that would be the more just and equitable attitude.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I have to inform the Committee that in my opinion the principle of Clause 1 and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of Debate on the various Amendments proposed thereto, and I therefore propose, in accordance with the Standing Order, to put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," forthwith.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While not, of course, contesting your Ruling, Major Milner, and not suggesting that a general wide Debate should be opened up, because I think the Clause has been discussed in detail, we should certainly wish to put the three points, that retrospective legislation is extended—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to continue. The Standing Order instructs me to put the Question forthwith.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not in any way debating it. It is simply on the point of Order. We should have thought it would be more convenient for those reading the long Debate, as indeed the slight contretemps about the previous entry in HANSARD has shown—this is a point of Order and I am not arguing the merit—it may have been for the convenience of those reading the long and complicated Debates to have, very succinctly, the points of difference stated between us on each side, but naturally, we bow to your Ruling.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 119.

Division No. 60.]
AYES
 [3.55 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Byers, Frank


Albu, A. H.
Benson, G.
Carmichael, James


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Alpass, J. H
Bevan, Rt. Hon E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Champ on, A. J


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Bing, G. H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Binns, J.
Cocks, F. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Blackburn, A. R.
Coldrick, W


Austin, H. Lewis
Blenkinsop, A.
Collick, P.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Collindridge, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Bramall, E A.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Brook, D (Halifax)
Corlett, Dr. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Cove, W. G.


Balfour, A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Crawley, A.


Barton, C.
Burke, W. A.
Cullen, Miss




Daggar, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Daines, P
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reeves, J


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lang, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N)


Deer, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Robertson, J, J, (Berwick)


Delargy, H. J.
Levy, B. W.
Rogers, G H. R.


Dodds, N. N.
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Royle, C.


Dumpleton, C W.
Lipson, D. L.
Scollan, T.


Edelman, M
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Segal, Dr S.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F
Shackleton, E. A A


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAllister, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ewart, R
McEntee, V La T.
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H G
Simmons, C. J


Fernyhough, E
McGovern, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mack, J. D
Skinnard, F. W


Follick, M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)


Foot, M. M
McKinlay, A. S
Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)


Forman, J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Snow, J W


Fraser, T (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mainwaring, W H.
Stross, Dr B.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gibbins, J
Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield)
Summerskill, Rt Hon. Ed[...]


Gilzean, A
Mann, Mrs. J
Swingler, S


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)
Sylvester, G O


Grey C. F
Mathers, Rt. Hon George
Symonds, A. L.


Grierson, E.
Medland, H. M
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R J
Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)


Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Gunter, R. J
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Guy. W. H.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, G. R
Thurtle, Ernest


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J


Hardman, D. R
Moody, A S.
Titterington, M. F.


Hardy, E A.
Morley, R
Tolley, L.


Harrison, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.


Haworth, J.
Morrison Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Usborne, Henry


Henderson, Rt. Hn A. (Kingswinford)
Mort, D L.
Vernon, Maj W F.


Hewitson, Capt M
Moyle, A.
Wadsworth, G


Hobson, C R
Murray, J D.
Walker, G. H.


Holman, P
Naylor, T E.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow. E.)


Horabin, T L
O'Brien, T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hoy J.
Olivet, G H
Watson, W M.


Hubbard, T
Paget, R T.
Webb, M (Bradford, C)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wells, P. L (Faversham)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, W. T (Dewsbury)
Wells, W T (Watsall)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J
West, D. G.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Whiteley, Rt Hon W.


Janner, B.
Pearson, A
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
peart T. F
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Jenkins, R. H
Piratin, P.
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Johnston, Douglas
Popplewell, E.
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A C. (Shipley)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Price, M. Philips
Willis, E.


Keenan, W
Proctor, W. T.
Wills, Mrs E. A


Kenyon, C
Pryde, D. J
Woods, G S


King, E. M.
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Yates, V F


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Randall, H. E.



Kinley, J
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Drayson, G. B.


Assheton, Rt. Hon R.
Conant, Maj R. J E.
Drewe, C.


Birch, Nigel
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Eccles, D. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Erroll, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter


Boothby, R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Erroll, F. J.


Bossom, A C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Bower, N.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Fraser, H. C P (Stone)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Darling, Sir W Y.
Galbraith, Cmdr T D (Pollok)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davidson, Viscountess
Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Digby, S W
Gammans, L D


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Dodds-Parker, A D.
Glyn, Sir R


Challen, C.
Donner, P W
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Channon, H
Dower, Col A. V G, (Penrith)
Grimston, R. V.







Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Roberson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Robinson, Roland


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
McFarlane, C. S
Ropner, Col. L.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Mackeson, Brig H. R.
Scott, Lord W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
MacLeod, J.
Spearman, A C. M.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Hollis, M C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin gh, W.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Sutcliffe, H.


Jarvis, Sir J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tayler, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J.
Teeling, William


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Keeling, E. H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Lambert, Hon. G.
Nicholson, G
Touche, G. C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborne, C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Langford-Holt, J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Hon. G, R.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lindsay, M (Solihull)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willtoughby de Eresby, Lord


Linstead, H. N.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Low, A. R. W.
Price-White, Li.-Col. D.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.



Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Mr. Studholme and


McCallum, Maj. D
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Colonel Wheatley.

CLAUSE 2.—(PROVISION AS TO PREMIUMS, ETC., WHERE S. 1 APPLIES.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, after "that," to insert "before the commencement of this Act."
This is a paving Amendment, which should be taken in conjunction with the new Clause on the prohibition of premiums which appears on the Order Paper. It will no doubt be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this matter later in the proceedings.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should have been perfectly prepared to discuss the matter on the paving Amendment. It is a little difficult to leave the whole matter until we reach the new Clause, as that course makes this Amendment rather meaningless. If the Minister wishes to take the matter now, we shall be willing to do so.

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but in view of the fact that hon. Members may have assumed that the new Clause would be reached at a certain time, it would perhaps be best if we allowed this Amendment to go through in the ordinary way. Members sometimes make their arrangements on the assumption that certain major questions will be taken at certain times in the course of the Committee stage. If we discuss the new Clause on what is purely a paving Amendment, it might give rise to misunderstanding.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Our only difficulty in following the course which the Minister suggests is lest that might be taken to prejudge the matter, which I am sure the Minister does not desire to be the case. One has to be careful in case the Chairman feels that some commitment has been entered into by the Committee which it would be wrong to reverse at a subsequent period. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Bowles, whether, if this Amendment is accepted now as a paving Amendment, it does not necessarily commit us at a later stage. If we could be so assured we should be willing to agree to the Amendment, but we should not wish, in doing so, to surrender any of our rights of criticism and debate at a later stage.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): In my view it would be more convenient for the Committee to discuss the general issue when we reach the new Clause. If the Committee accept this Amendment, it will be without prejudice to debate or decision later.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On that understanding, that it is without prejudice to later debate and decision, we should not object to this Amendment now being included in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "the tenancy," and to insert:
a tenancy of the dwelling-house to which the application relates.


This is a clarifying Amendment which is linked with a series of consequential Amendments. The position with which the Amendment is concerned is that a contractual tenancy may have expired with the tenant in possession of the house and with a rental equivalent still to be collected. The idea is to continue the period of the right to occupy the premises until the expiry of the period over which the rental equivalent has still to be collected. It does not affect an entirely new tenant who would have no such rights; it is concerned with a continuing tenancy, where the tenancy may have expired but where the tenant is still in possession of the house, and still has rental equivalents to collect; and it extends the period to the time when the rental equivalents expire.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the fact that this Amendment is a little more than a clarifying one. The intention of the original Measure was by no means clear. The proposition which the Minister now advances that a tenant might have possession of the building during his tenancy and thereafter for a period rent free seems to us to be going a long way. It might easily produce a situation in which it would be quite impossible for the property owner to maintain the premises in good and tenantable repair. Some of my hon. Friends have put down Amendments for consideration at a later stage dealing with that point. Perhaps it would be more convenient if we discussed the matter now, as this is an Amendment connected with a group of Amendments which the Minister has down for subsequent consideration, all of which have this same general purpose.
As I understand the position, the tenancy may be prolonged for a period during which a tenant may enjoy rent-free possession—that the physical possession of the house may be granted to the tenant for presumably quite a considerable period so that what the Minister would call the overcharge, might be collected by the tenant. That involves certain questions which it would be impossible simply to dismiss.

Mr. Bevan: This Amendment is merely concerned with a question of doubt. There are some people who could contend quite properly that these Amendments are not necessary to achieve

the end I have stated. In order to make quite sure that this end is secured, however, this Amendment and a succession of other Amendments have been put down on the Order Paper. This Amendment does not prejudge the question of principle, but if the principle is determined, this is the way in which it will apply.

Mr. Marlowe: What would happen if another tenant replaced the tenant of whom the Minister has been speaking?

Mr. Bevan: The rental equivalent would cease entirely. This Amendment is merely to make it clear that a new tenancy does not necessarily mean a new tenant.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Do these Amendments affect the principle which we are to discuss later which concerns the position when a premium, for the sake of convenience, is divided into instalments, and when the premium to be returned is greater than the rent payable; and when the period of the tenancy is limited to three or four years and there is still some premium to he repaid at the end of that time? Is that position being dealt with in what the Minister is saying?

Mr. Bevan: We are not at the moment deciding the principle of whether any rent should be recoverable. In the event of Parliament subsequently deciding that these conditions should apply this is the way in which we consider they should apply in this particular case. Suppose the lease expires and the contractual tenant becomes the statutory tenant but nevertheless a rental equivalent has to be collected for some years because of the premium which has been paid. That tenant can continue to pay a low rent despite the fact that he has become a statutory tenant. But if he vacates the premises and a new tenant takes possession, that new tenant cannot claim any rental equivalent, as there can be no assignment of a statutory tenancy.

Mr. Janner: This rather differs from a reply which was given to me in the course of the Second Reading Debate, about this point. I understood that reply to mean that if a subsequent tenancy was entered into, those reductions would apply in respect of the new tenancy. Otherwise the


position would be rather awkward. It would mean that if a landlord charged a premium, and if that premium was not recoverable in subsequent lettings, the landlord would be retaining an advantage which was quite wrong. The way in which I would suggest the matter should be dealt with—and I should be obliged if the Minister would consider it between now and the Report stage—is that the amount of the rent should be reducible also to cover a transfer, and that the assignor should be entitled to claim a portion of the premiums from the assignee.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to discuss the main question now. My hon. Friend has it quite wrong in this matter. There is no assignor of a statutory tenancy. What will happen, if Parliament so determines at a subsequent point, is that there will be first of all a contractual tenant who has paid a premium to the landlord. That contractual tenant will have received a reduction of rent as rental equivalent. He could become an assignor, before the end of his lease, to another person. Therefore, that subsequent person could collect the reduced rent. But this will be a statutory tenant and he could not become an assignor and there is no reason why an entirely new tenant should collect money which he has never paid.

Mr. Foster: I think that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) was wrong in using the word "assignor." He should have said "subsequent tenant." The reason we are a little suspicious about this Amendment is because the right hon. Gentleman has said that it helps him to achieve his object later. On reading it I do not see how it does that and the right hon. Gentleman has not explained how it does it. If one
reads—

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that. All I said was that if subsequently we decided that premiums were to be paid, this would be one of the vehicles by which they could be paid.

Mr. Foster: That sounds the same to me, but perhaps I cannot appreciate Welsh subtlety. The right hon. Gentleman says that, and if one looks at the

Amendment it looks quite an innocent Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: It is.

Mr. Foster: It looks innocent, because it looks as if the draftsman had written the words "the tenancy," and, no tenancy having been referred to before, had said to himself, "That is not clear, I want to make it clear that I am referring to a tenancy of the dwelling house to which the application relates." If it is confined to that, it is quite an innocent Amendment. It does not prejudice the question later in any way and does not enable the right hon. Gentleman to use any kind of vehicle to achieve his object later. That is what is confusing—that he says that this Amendment is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object later. I cannot see how it does, and he has not explained how it does. If he will tell us what is the relation of this Amendment to his later objective, our suspicions will probably be allayed. But, he having said that, we do not know at the moment where we are. "The tenancy" here is just rather an inaccurate way of describing something which has not been referred to and therefore, as I see it, the draftsman has improved his draftsmanship. If the right hon. Gentleman stopped there we might be satisfied, but he goes on to say that it is one of the vehicles which helps him to achieve his object. It is not clear why it is and he has not said why.

Mr. Bevan: Is not the hon. Member being over subtle? The assumption is that the vehicle is there. Now the vehicle is being clarified and oiled up. That is all.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that on that we must accept the Minister's contention. It is rather mixing metaphors to speak of a vehicle being clarified, except in the administration of drugs, which is a different argument, but one with which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has become familiar in recent years. We can say that the vehicle is being oiled and trued up. I think we can agree that what is to be put in the vehicle we shall discuss afterwards.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The next three Amendments which we have put down in


page 3, lines 4 and 6, really relate to the Minister's new Clause and we shall be willing to take a discussion on that later. Therefore, we do not propose to move them.
Amendment made: In Clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out "under that tenancy," and insert "of the dwelling-house."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from first "premium," to end of line 10, and to insert:
Provided that this Section shall not have effect where since the said grant, continuance or renewal the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is this still part of the oiling of the vehicle or is it not rather a flaw in the original Bill which is being corrected?

Mr. Bevan: It is entirely consequential upon the one we have already decided. There are a series of consequential Amendments.

Colonel Dower: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what that one is?

Mr. Bevan: The one we have just carried, which I said was oiling the vehicle.

Mr. Molson: Is this a new part for the vehicle? On previous occasions the Minister has expressed sympathy with my desire that the drafting of Bills should be as simple and as lucid as possible. I have read and re-read this Amendment and I do not find it either simple or lucid. The very fact that we have to be told that it is consequential shows that it is not absolutely simple to understand. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how this lubricates the vehicle?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at it he will see it relates at once to what we have done. It is to make the distinction between an entirely new tenant and a continuation, which is what we originally decided was necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is desirable that we should have this clear and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for

The High Peak (Mr. Molson) was justified in his remarks. The Minister has made it clear—and this point was raised by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr Janner)—that this distinguishes sharply between a person who has the tenancy and some other person. But what we ask is whether the Minister, between now and Report stage, will give attention to the wording and see whether, when these various points have been agreed to or dissented from in principle, it may not be possible to state it in clearer language. So far as clarification or redrafting on Report stage is concerned, we shall offer no niggling objection to anything which will make the Statute more easy and clear to understand, so that he who runs may read—if that ever may be said about rent restriction legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman: Would it meet the convenience of the Committee if I put together all the Amendments in the name of the Minister which follow?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We must have it quite clear which are the Amendments. We do not wish to find ourselves in the quandary in which we were this afternoon, and subsequently have to have—I will not say the OFFICIAL REPORT—may I say the "Demi-Official Report" altered in a subsequent entry. While we play the rigour of the game most sternly, we assume, and I think rightly, that the Minister plays it according to the rules. If he will give us an assurance that these are drafting Amendments, and can indicate from which line to which line he wishes them inserted, we shall not, for the purpose of delay or obstruction, wish any time to be spent on them.

Mr. Bevan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I know it is difficult for hon. Members and I will read out the ones which I regard as entirely consequential. They are liable to be changed later if they do not turn out to be consequential. They are:
Page 3, line 21, leave out from "expression," to first "the," in line 22, and insert:
 "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between.


Line 24, leave out "ending," and insert:
the following date (in this section referred to as the 'relevant date') that is to say.
Line 28, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
Line 30, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."
Line 37, after "notice," insert "by the landlord."
Line 38, leave out "ending," and insert "giving."
Line 44, leave out from second "the," to end of line, and insert "relevant date."
Page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."
Line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."
Line 10, leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.
Line 12, after "paragraph," insert:
shall be deemed to be the relevant date.
Line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert:
the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister has not said anything about the proposed Amendment in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Let us dispose of that first. We can go on to the bunch of Amendments the Minister mentioned later.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 14.

Mr. Foster: Would the Minister say why he is leaving out the definition of "premium"?

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is merely a drafting Amendment to transfer to Clause 14 what is at present provided here. There is no change in the provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman: Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if the next seven Amendments were taken together?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it would be simpler if the Amendment in page 3, line 21, were put now. That is where we have now arrived. From our own examination of it we are of the same opinion as the Minister, that these Amendments are drafting, or consequential, and therefore I would counsel my hon. Friends in that sense, that these do not alter the sense of the Statute and do not pre-judge any of the issues which we have to consider. For that reason they may well be made. I think it would be convenient, however, if they were called separately, otherwise not only we, but the Table might find considerable difficulty in following so large a bunch of Amendments some of which are scattered among other Amendments.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move in page 3, line 21, to leave out from "expression," to the first "the," in line 2, and insert:
 "'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered, divided by the number of rent-periods between.

Mr. Foster: I understand that the Minister is proposing to leave out the definition of "relevant part of the letting" and to insert a definition of "rental equivalent." That seems to be what the Amendment does. The relevant part of the letting is referred to in page 3, line 10. Is it to be defined again in Clause 14? Where do we find "rental equivalent"? As I understand the Amendment it is, in line 21, to leave out "the relevant part of the letting means the period the period beginning with," and to insert instead the words which follow in the Amendment. My question is: why are we leaving out "'relevant part of the letting.'" because it is an expression which occurs in page 3, line 10?

4.30 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amend-is only consequential on the Amendment already accepted, as I understand it.

Mr. Bevan: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, to leave oat "subsections (5) and (6)," and to insert, "the subsequent provisions."
Is it your intention, Mr. Bowles, that we should discuss at the same time the proposed Amendment in page 4, line 13, at the end, insert:
(5) Where at the date of an application under the foregoing Section the landlord is a person who has become the landlord of the premises in respect of which or of any part of which a premium has been paid after the date upon which such premium has been paid and has purchased the premises for value the provisions of this Section shall not apply and the tenant shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom such premium was paid and in no other manner the amount by which the reasonable rent of the premises is less than the aggregate of the rent actually payable in respect thereof and of the rental equivalent of the premium.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.

Sir J. Mellor: The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that where the ownership of premises has changed hands the new landlord shall not be penalised if the previous landlord received a premium; that is to say, provided the new landlord acquired the premises for value. I think it will be conceded that it is quite impossible for the purchaser of a house to discover whether or not a premium has been paid to the vendor, so that if the purchaser has given full value for the premises it would be entirely inequitable that he should suffer because the person from whom he purchased had had the benefit of receiving a premium from the tenant. This Amendment is designed to secure that the tenant shall recover against the person to whom he paid the premium, and not from anyone else. It is, I think, a just proposal which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.

Mr. Bevan: As I understand the point it is that, when a house has been sold, the tenant is entitled to proceed against a landlord who has never received the premium, and to get a reduction of rent accordingly, whereas the proceedings ought to lie against the landlord who has benefited by receiving the premium. I think that there is a point here, and I shall look at it to see if it can be covered. I think that the proposed Amendment is a little too wide.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not want to make a long speech, but I must say that I should be against the proposed Amendment in principle. The premium was paid in respect of the house and the tenancy, and the

liability to return it ought to attach to the tenancy and to the house. A landlord who has received a premium and sells the house ought to be under a duty to inform any purchaser from him of the circumstances. But to leave the tenant to have to chase the landlord to whom he paid the premium to Timbuctoo because the landlord has sold the house and run away. would be to destroy the purpose of the Bill.

Colonel Dower: It seems to me that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would be covered if the vendor were in some way made responsible and put under an obligation if he has received a premium.

Mr. Bevan: We are here dealing only with past cases, because once the Bill becomes law, any future premiums for rent controlled property would be illegal, so that that situation would not arise. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) I would point out that, there being no legal obligation—because all these premiums are not illegal—on the part of the vendor to inform the buyer of the premises that a premium had been paid, it appears to me to be rather unreasonable that the new owner, who was kept in complete ignorance of the liability he might have to meet, should be the person to be proceeded against.
This is a question of equity as between the landlord and the tenant. We are not depriving the tenant of a remedy, but we are exempting the landlord from an abuse. It would be an abuse if, having paid a price for a house on a certain assumption which was altered, the tenant could get a reduction of the rent by a rental equivalent of a premium which that landlord never charged. It seems to me, therefore, to be quite just that the tenant should be able to pursue the previous landlord. It is not so difficult to identify the previous landlord in most cases. I agree that there will be some cases where it might not be easy to find him, but it would not be so difficult to find the landlord, whose name will be on the conveyance, as it would be, later on, to find the tenant who might have disappeared into the void. This seems to be a perfectly just thing to consider in itself, but I would say that perhaps the appropriate time to debate it is


when we have put down the Amendment which we should consider reasonable to carry this principle into effect.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to debate it. If after consideration my right hon. Friend retains the view he has just expressed, I shall not make any difficulties about it, because it is only a small point. However, since my right hon. Friend has promised to consider it I do want to take this opportunity of ensuring that he considers it all round. I do not think that it would be such an easy thing for a tenant to find out where his landlord has gone after having sold the premises, whereas I do think that it would be a perfectly easy thing for a man who buys his house to put into his requisition on title—which he will deliver anyhow in the course of obtaining the conveyance, what premium has been received in the case of any tenancy disclosed. In that case the purchaser would buy with notice. Anyone who has had experience of conveyancing will know that it would be perfectly easy for the purchaser of such a house to protect himself.

Sir J. Mellor: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 48, at the end to insert:
or one-half of the reasonable rent, whichever is the greater.
I can put the point at issue here very briefly. The general purpose of the Bill has been to enable premiums to be recovered, in so far as they can be recovered by reducing the rent still due. The Minister has made it plain that he does not intend that there should be any provision enabling money once paid to be claimed back. He obviously realises that in order not to impose an intolerable hardship, which might also result in great inconvenience, it is necessary that any sum recovered in respect of the premium should be recovered by deduction from the rents still to be paid. I put it to the Minister that it will also be a very great hardship, and likely to result in great inconvenience, if for a considerable period of time, the owner of the house receives no rent at all.
We have largely in mind the comparatively small owners of property, and the maintenance of that property is met largely, sometimes wholly, out of the rent paid. I hope the Minister will consider that it is reasonable that the minimum rent which shall be paid so long as these tenancies continue shall be one-half of the reasonable rent. The point made by the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago about continuing into the future the existing contractual tenancy will make this provision less onerous in its operation upon the tenant, and will therefore enable this recovery of the premium to be spread over a longer period of time, and will reduce the inconvenience and hardship which would result from the landlord receiving no rent for a considerable period.

Mr. Bevan: The Committee will have in mind that we have already provided in the Bill that there shall be a minimum period of seven years as a divisor in order that the annual increment falling to the tenant should be reasonably small. At the same time, where the amount of premium was so exorbitant as not to be extinguished in such a period—in other words, it might be much more than the reasonable rent itself—we have made provision to add to the number of years so as to try to make either the two cancel out, or to make some small amount of rent payable.
The circumstances envisaged by the hon. Member would, therefore, arise only where there has been an unreasonable premium and the landlord has been in enjoyment of the premium, so no hardship would fall upon him if he had no rent for some time. This could not arise except in cases where the landlord has exacted a very large sum of money, which the tribunal considered so utterly unreasonable as to extinguish, or almost extinguish, the rent. I cannot, therefore, accept that in such a case there has been hardship on the landlord. Indeed, the hardship would, under the terms of the Amendment, be transferred to the tenant because it would take him very much longer to get his money back.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister sees the strength of the case. Indeed, as he has admitted, when drafting the Bill the Government made this provision of seven years with exactly this sort of contingency in view. This brings


up sharply the point about retrospective legislation, because this is an executed contract which was not illegal when it was carried out, and now a piece of retrospection is being carried out. What we say, from the practical point of view, is that a tenant may be in the position in which he is making no contribution towards the standing charges for the upkeep of the property. We all know that in practice that might lead to rapid deterioration of the property. This is really a very practical point to which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has drawn attention, and it deserves further consideration.
It may well be that the tribunal will act reasonably, but it is also not unknown that a tribunal may act in a somewhat unreasonable fashion. I consider that this Committee, which has given no directions at all to the tribunal, should not leave the owner of a small property in a position in which, for a period of years, he will receive no income at all by means of which he can maintain the property in good and tenantable repair. That will prove to be a disadvantage to all the large class of tenants who desire tenantable property, and to the occasional landlord who has carried out and executed a perfectly legal contract a number of years ago. I hope that the Minister will not completely dismiss the question, as he appears to have done in the reply which he has given to the hon. Member for The High Peak.

Mr. Piratin: Will the Minister clear up a point concerning repairs? Apart from the fact that the landlord has an obligation to do repairs, and that the local authority can order him to do so, this Bill as it stands does not forbid the tenant making an arrangement with the landlord not to withhold the complete rent if the landlord does carry out repairs. In my view, this Bill does not break that arrangement.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a very important point. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has suggested that landlord and tenant can contract out of this Bill. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, the determination is that the tenant need not pay all the rent if some of the repairs are not done.

Mr. Bevan: It is an academic point. The tenant would not proceed to arbitration at all on that point. It is only the tenant who appears to have a grievance who will ask for the arbitration of the tribunal.

Colonel Dower: I do not think there is any dispute about the objective which both sides of the Committee are seeking to attain, and the question is how the money should be recovered most fairly in the interests of all the parties. The instance which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider, and it is one on which I have some knowledge, is that of poor property concerning which there are loans and mortgages from the bank and so on, the interest on which has to be met. If the owner of this property did something illegal when he charged a premium, I should have no compunction or pity for him at all.

Mr. Bevan: I agree that the only case in which this could arise is one in which the landlord had been manifestly unjust and was in possession of excessive sums of money received over some years. I can imagine the tribunal coming to a decision on this particular case in those circumstances but this does not seem to me to be a point of hardship at all.

Colonel Dower: I was not concerned with hardship so much as with the means by which the property was to be main tained during that period. Will the Minister say how, in a case where the property is mortgaged, the landlord would be able to have that property maintained during that period?

Mr. Marlowe: This situation has been rather altered by the Amendment which was accepted yesterday and which put the relevant date back to 1939. I could see some force in the argument that if, during the last few years, the landlord had received a premium which was illegal at the time, that would have some relation to the money which he had received by way of premium being used for repairs in the subsequent years, but that has been altered by putting the date back a further six years. We must bear in mind that the premium was lawfully accepted, and that very often the rent was adjusted accordingly, especially if there was a rent which the right hon. Gentleman might call exorbitant and which others might prefer to call just and substantial.

Mr. Bevan: That is really one of the most relevant factors for the tribunal.

Mr. Marlowe: I know it is, but the tribunal cannot raise the rent. If the rent was a low one because there was a premium, the position will be that the rent must remain the same and cannot be increased to bring it up to what the rent would have been if there had been no premium. That is a very important point, and it is becoming increasingly important by reason of the fact that the relevant date has been put back six years.
Let us suppose that the rent was £1 a week, in relation to a tenancy beginning since the war ended in 1945, and that, over the subsequent period of three years, the landlord had received £156. That rent would have been fixed originally in relation to the fact that he was receiving, say, £150 over these three years. But, now, if a premium had been fixed in relation to the rent, it has to be spread over nine or 10 years, and that considerably reduces the value of the rent to the landlord. A tenant might even live rent free for a considerable time, which is most undesirable, both from the point of view of the tenant and that of the landlord and is not in the interests of the proper maintenance of property.

Sir J. Mellor: I think the trouble here is that the Minister has approached this question as if it were a criminal one. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Clause affecting only the landlord who has obtained a very unjust and unreasonable premium, and he appears to regard this as a punishment and thinks that that landlord should get no rent at all. This Measure gives certain civil rights to tenants. It is not a criminal proceeding at all, but, if it were, and if the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards it was correct, surely it would be highly improper by means of this Clause to impose a penalty retrospectively? It is one thing to vary civil rights retrospectively, but something which is never done by Parliament is to impose a penalty for an offence committed before the Statute creating that offence became law. I think there is an important point here.
If the Minister approaches this matter as if the landlord who had received an unreasonable premium had committed some criminal offence, it is quite improper to use this Bill as a means of

punishing him, because it will be a retrospective punishment. If, on the other hand, we are to treat this matter as being purely a question of varying civil rights between two contractual parties, we ought to regard it in a different spirit. We must recognise that the landlord who obtained a premium, which was perfectly lawful at the time, had no reason whatever to suppose that that transaction would be interfered with by this legislation.
Now, however, the Minister is going to interfere with it, and I think that it should not be interfered with, if at all, without having reasonable regard to the position of the landlord, who is taken entirely by surprise. It is not the fault of the landlord that this Measure was not introduced three years ago. That is the fault of the Government, but I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if it had been introduced three years ago—I am not saying that it should have been, because it is a bad Bill now and would have been then—this situation would not have arisen. Introducing it three years late, I think it is highly unfair to treat a landlord who has received a perfectly lawful premium as if he had committed a criminal offence and to impose upon him a retrospective penalty.

Mr. Janner: May I try to put this matter on a different footing from that on which it rests at present, due to the fact that we have not heard the whole truth about this Amendment? What has been overlooked by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) is that the principal Acts refer to properties and dwelling-houses which come within a certain rateable value. These principal Acts, in so far as the cover is concerned, are not affected by this Measure, and, consequently, the provisions of the principal Acts continue to apply and were being applied at the time when the tenancies to which hon. Members are referring were created. It was illegal to exact a premium except in respect of a tenancy agreement or lease which extended for a period of 14 years or over. Consequently, there cannot be any tenancy agreements affected by this Clause which have not still some time to run. If a premium was exacted for a shorter term, it was illegal. I understand that the complaint here is that it would involve a considerable hardship on the


tenant unless some concession of this sort were made, but the fact of the matter is that, if the landlord let the place for less than 14 years, in asking for a premium he was committing an offence and was aware of the fact that he was not entitled to that premium.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, if the landlord had received an illegal premium, that could have been recovered in full?

Mr. Janner: It may be recovered or it may not under the Bill, but this Clause purports to give the tenant another method of recovering the amount from the landlord. It serves the purpose of enabling the landlord to repay if he is not in a position to repay the full amount at once, and that of course is very important.
5.0 p.m.
I think the position is this: nobody who is called upon to repay a premium in those circumstances can be heard to say that he did not know what he would have to do in the event of his charging that premium. These people knew exactly what rent they were entitled to exact under the Act and they knew that if they charged a premium, and in consequence charged a lower rental, they would be doing something that would still enable the tenant to recover the premium. They cannot be heard to say at this stage that they will be prejudiced by anything in this Bill. I do not want hon. Members to think that I am trying to put a legal point to overcome something which it is reasonable to request.

Mr. Molson: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. What I am referring to are the three kinds of premiums which, until the passing of this Bill, are and have been perfectly legal.

Mr. Janner: After the passing of the Bill, of course, the person will know precisely what he is doing.

Colonel Dower: We all know that.

Mr. Janner: I wish the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Colonel Dower) knew the other thing, too. This only applies where the tenancy is for 14 years or over, and consequently there should be very few cases indeed in which the particular circumstances to which the hon. Member refers will arise.

Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has not referred to the case of the letting of property which had not been previously let—letting during the war—where it was perfectly legal to charge a premium.

Mr. Janner: It is really a question of a premium, which applies even in that case. The 1939 Act says one must not charge a premium, so when a person charged it as rent he knew very well that unless the agreement was for 14 years or over he would not be entitled to charge a premium. That is precisely the point I was trying to make.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 265.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[5.05 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Darling, Sir W. Y.
Head, Brig A. H.


Barlow, Sir J.
De la Bère, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C


Birch, Nigel
Digby, S. W.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Dodds-Parker, A, D.
Hogg, Hon. Q


Boothby, R.
Dower, Col A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hollis, M C


Bower, N
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh. W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Drayson, G B.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Drewe, C.
Jarvis, Sir J.


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.
Eccles, D M
Jeffreys, General Sir G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Jennings, R


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Erroll, F. J
Keeling, E. H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fletcher, W (Bury)
Lamoert, Hon. G.


Butcher, H. W.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Langford-Holt, J


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Carson, E.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Lindsay, M (Solihull)


Challen, C.
Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)
Linstead, H. N.


Clarke, Col. R S.
Gammans, L. D
Low, A. R. W.


Clifton-B own, Lt.-Col. G
Glyn, Sir R
Lucas, Major Sir J


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)
Gridley, Sir A.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.
McCallum, Maj. D


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
McCorquoda'e, Rt Hon. M S.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)




McFarlane, C. S.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Studholme, H. G.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pickthorn, K.
Sutcliffe, H.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Teeling, William


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Renton, D.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Vane, W. M. F.


Marlowe, A A. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Marsden, Capt. A.
Ropner, Col. L.
white sir D. (Fareham)


Mellor, Sir J.
Savory, Prof D L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Moison, A. H. E.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Eart


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Smithers, Sir W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.



Nicholson, G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Major Conant and


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Lislie, J. R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Levy, B. W.


Attewell, H. C
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Field, Capt. W J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Follick, M.
Lipson, D. L.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Foot, M. M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Forman, J. C.
Logan, D. G.


Balfour, A
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Barton, C.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McAllister, G.


Bechervaise, A E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McEntee, V. La T.


Benson, G.
Gibbins, J.
McGhee, H. G


Berry, H.
Gilzean, A
McGovern. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mack, J. D.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Binns, J.
Grierson, E.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Blackburn, A. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McKinlay, A. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McLeavy, F.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Gunter, R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bramall, E A.
Guy. W. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, T. J, (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hardy, E. A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Burden, T. W.
Harrison, J
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Burke, W. A.
Haworth, J.
Medland, H. M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Mellish, R. J


Byers, Frank
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F.


Carmichael, James
Hicks, G.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian


Champion, A J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Mitchison, G. R.


Cobb, F. A.
Hoy, J.
Monslow, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hubbard, T.
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Collick, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morley, R.


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cooper, G.
Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Mort, D. L.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Moyle, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Janner, B.
Murray, J. D.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Naylor, T. E.


Crawley, A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cullen, Miss
Jenkins, R. H.
O'Brien, T.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Douglas
Oliver, G. H


Daines, P.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Parker, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kenyon, C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
King, E. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Peart, T. F.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Piratin, P.


Delargy, H. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Popplewell, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Driberg, T. E. N
Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lavers, S.
Price, M. Philips


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Pritt, D. N.







Proctor, W. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Wadsworth, G.


Pryde, D. J.
Skinnard, F. W.
Walker, G. H.


Pursey, Comdr. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Randall, H. E.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Watkins, T. E.


Rangar, J.
Snow, J. W
Watson, W. M.


Rankin, J.
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Rees-Williams, D. R
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Reeves, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Sparks, J. A.
West, D. G.


Rhodes, H.
Stamford, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Richards, R.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E)


Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wigg, George


Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)
Swingler, S
Wilkins, W. A.


Robertson, J. J (Berwick)
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Symonds, A. L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Royle, C.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Sargood, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Scollan, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willis, E.


Scott-Elliot, W
Thurtle, Ernest
Wiils, Mrs. E. A


Segal, Dr. S.
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Shackleton, E. A. A
Titterington, M. F
Woods, G. S.


Sharp, Granville
Tolley, L
Yates, V. F.


Shurmer, P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Usborne, Henry



Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Richard Adams


Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, leave out line 6, and insert "that date were the relevant date."

In line 7, leave out "will," and insert "would."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in line 8, after "be," to insert "as."

This is to correct a misprint in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 10. leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 11.—[Mr. Bevan.]

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment is in line 12.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have an Amendment in line 10, after "deemed." to insert:
for the purposes of this section only.

The Deputy-Chairman: That has already fallen by the previous Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Which previous Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Minister's previous Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: That is the Amendment in line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to the first "the," in line 11. That is consequential.

5.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment having been passed, it is impossible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to move his Amendment to line 10.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This shows the difficulty we can fall into in being as reasonable as we can with the Minister. It is perfectly true that the Minister's Amendment was consequential. However, I should have thought that as we had indicated we attached importance to this Amendment of ours, and intended to move it, the Minister's Amendment might have been moved saving ours. As the Minister can see, we shall have to oppose Amendments—which otherwise we should certainly not oppose—for the purpose of saving our own subsequent Amendments. We do attach a great amount of importance to this. If we cannot discuss it now, perhaps we can on the Question "That the Clause stand part," although there would be a difficulty about that, as it would be tidier to have the discussion here and now.

The Deputy-Chairman: That cannot be done, because the Minister has insisted on moving his Amendment and it has been passed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, therefore, precluded from moving his Amendment. He would have been, in any case, with or without the "saving."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think you will agree, Mr. Bowles, and I think the Minister will agree, that we have been very reasonable in not attempting to delay the Committee; but we are very anxious to safeguard our own position in these matters. I had not myself realised that, in assenting to the Minister's consequential


Amendment, we were debarring ourselves from moving an Amendment which we regard as of real substance, and the point of which we shall try to bring out at another stage.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, it may be possible to do that on the Question "That the Clause stand part." As the position is at the moment, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is precluded from moving this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: There is not very much between us here at all. We think it is a matter of drafting. I will look at this. There is no real question involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If the Minister in drafting will have in mind the implications of our Amendment then, of course, he will be going some way to meet our point. We shall, as has been said already in another connection, reserve our fundamental interest until we see what the proposals are that the Minister intends to lay before us at a subsequent stage. We shall do our best to take any Parliamentary opportunity that may be allowed us to develop the general line of argument we should like to deploy on this matter, and which we hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into account.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have an opportunity on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

Commander Galbraith: You have disallowed our Amendment, Mr. Bowles, because we have accepted an Amendment which leaves out line 10 to the first "the" in line 11; but may I suggest that it would be perfectly possible for this passage to read properly if our Amendment were put in? It would read thus:
For the purpose of this Section only the date determined under the last foregoing paragraph.…;
I think that would meet the point.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps, it would be more convenient to let the matter stand as it is, as the Minister is going to look at it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We find ourselves in this difficulty, owing, perhaps, to an excess of zeal in co-operation—an

unusual fault in an Opposition. I should have thought that the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) would have been most convenient. It is tidier to deal with points one by one as we reach them, rather than by a general discussion on the Question "That the Clause stand part." However, we are in the hands of the Chair.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have looked at the matter again, and I think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) is right, and, therefore, the Amendment may be moved.

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the beginning, to insert:
for the purposes of this Section only.
I should like to start by thanking you, Mr. Bowles, for helping us over this We think there is an important point here, and we should like more clarification of it. The premium is divided by the number of years in the tenancy of seven years. The amount of the premium is divided, and as a result of the calculation made an annual levy, so to speak, is made on the actual rent paid by the tenant. That is all perfectly well from a mathematical, calculating point of view, but the thing we want to find out is whether the tenancy is automatically extended—

Mr. Bevan: I have already said that if these fears turn out to be justified, I shall import into the Bill a form of words to make it impossible for that to happen. That is what I have guaranteed to do.

Mr. Hare: Since I have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall not detain the Committee.

Mr. Bevan: We are at one here.

Mr. Hare: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 12, after "paragraph," insert:
shall be deemed to be the relevant date.
In line 22, leave out from "after," to end of line 24, and insert:
the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, to leave out subsection (7).
My reasons for moving this Amendment are very simple. I want to ask the Minister to explain the real purpose of this subsection. My interpretation of it is that it makes a gift to the landlord of the proportion of a premium which has been taken illegally from the tenant in defiance of the law. The law in this respect is laid down in Section 8 of the Act of 1920, in respect of old controlled houses; and in respect of the new controlled houses, in the First Schedule to the 1939 Act. It seems to me that the landlord is now being allowed to get away with the money which he has already obtained. The subsection specifically deprives the tenant of his present right under these laws to recover part of the premium paid prior to the date of the tribunal's decision. The opening words of the subsection are, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Acts." Thus, the principal Acts do not apply.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain what is the purpose of this subsection. I am certain that there is a very large measure of common ground in his attitude and mine on this particular question. Neither of us—if I may put it moderately, without causing much contention on the other side of the Committee, although that does not worry me very much—wants to be overgenerous to the landlords; and yet it seems to me that in this case we are being over-generous to the landlords. On the other hand, if my interpretation of the subsection is wrong, and the Minister can explain it adequately, then it is likely that I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: The explanation is perfectly simple. A tenant can exercise one right or another. If he wishes, he can go to the courts for the recovery of the whole premium. If he does not wish to do that, he can go to the tribunal for the recovery of such part of the premium as this Bill would entitle him to obtain. It does not seem to me that he should have the right to do both together, but one or the other. Nothing is taken away from him. If he wishes to apply under the principal Acts, he can still do so. If he wishes to exercise his rights conferred by this Bill, he may do so. He is losing nothing.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say how that explanation fits in with his new Clause on the Notice Paper (Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy)? In subsection (9) of that new Clause it is proposed to repeal Section 8 of the Act of 1920.

Mr. Bevan: We can discuss that when we reach it. At the moment we are discussing whether the tenant has the right to make two applications. As I have said, this deprives him of nothing at all.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out subsection (9).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand this is little more than a drafting Amendment, and that the subsection is to be omitted here and inserted at a later stage. We can discuss it then, and so we will not object now.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Colonel Dower: The matter I want to discuss can, perhaps, be better discussed on Third Reading, but I think it ought to be mentioned now. It is this. The Clause receives the general support of the Committee in so far as it seeks to stop abuses of premiums, and stops not only the owner but the tenant also from exploiting an assignment of lease. However, there is one difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman ought to think about with his expert advisers, and that is how it is possible for a tenant to get a really long lease. After all, if he wants a long lease—of 40 years, for instance—why should he not be able to have it?
If the right hon. Gentleman rules out any question of the payment of a premium of some amount—I am not now referring to the exploitation of premiums—I think he will find that there will not be that feeling of security that I should like to see every Britisher have—that feeling of security in knowing he has a roof over his head for the remaining years of his life. We have discussed premiums


which are demanded in a vicious manner, which is fundamentally bad. However, there are occasions when a premium is not bad, and when, indeed, a man wants to pay it. It is on those lines that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the point I am bringing forward. I hope we shall cure the abuse of which we all disapprove, but will not deny the opportunity of security to a tenant who wishes to have a roof over his head for a number of years.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear my mind on one point. When a man owns two houses which are on a collective ground rent, and he desires to sell one of them, that is commonly done by charging, say, £300 for that one house and granting a 99 years' lease, or the whole of the expiring term of the lease, as a notional conversion. One would not want that convenient device to be caught in a Bill designed to deal with something quite different. It may well be that there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to that point, but I have called the attention of the Minister to it so that the point may be covered, if necessary.

Mr. Marlowe: I should like to set it on record that I do not share the views of the right hon. Gentleman that all premiums are immoral per se. Unfortunately, as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) has said, that is the manner in which this matter has been approached. There are instances in which a premium is defensible on every ground of morality and justice. I think it is unfortunate that, because there have been instances where the situation has been exploited and the power to extract a premium has been used immorally, it should be assumed that every landlord is an extortionate usurer. I find no evidence to make me believe that this is a matter of widespread malpractice. Personally, I know of many cases where a premium is desirable, and in return for a premium, by way almost of an investment, the tenant has to pay considerably less rent. Many tenants prefer to have their tenancy on such terms and I think it unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman is making that impossible.
There is one other aspect of this matter. I do not think this Measure will make any contribution to the right hon. Gentleman's housing programme. Perhaps that is immaterial because his housing programme is such a failure that there is nothing which could make it much worse. I think he is going to discourage conversion. There will be many cases in which owners of property would be prepared to convert old houses into a number of flats, to bring old properties up to date or even acquire properties for the purpose of conversion in the belief that they could legitimately make a small profit by doing so. They would be encouraged to enter upon conversion schemes because of the incentive of making that profit. They are up against the usual approach of this Socialist Government which believes that all incentives ought to be killed.
There is no doubt that the prospect of making a profit on a conversion of that kind is an incentive to a property-owner to make that conversion and thereby make fresh dwellings available. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, does not approach these things in that way. He prefers the rather vindictive attitude of assuming the property owners are persons who ought to be exterminated, and insists on putting on the Statute Book anything which he thinks will achieve that end. I cannot help feeling that by this Measure he will do a great deal of harm to the provision of fresh housing accommodation.

Mr. S. Silverman: No one, I think, will regret that we should for a minute or two, in the middle of this businesslike Measure, give the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) an opportunity of making his party's characteristic defence of landlords. All that is perfectly right, and it is well that the Opposition's case should be made so abundantly clear as he has made it. That is, however, no reason why we should be deceived in any way. No one has ever said that there is anything immoral in a premium by itself, any more than anyone has ever said that there is anything wrong in a rent by itself, or that there is anything wrong in free bargaining and negotiating between a tenant and a landlord and the fixing of a rent in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks that


anybody on this side of the Committee has ever said any of those things.
What has been said is that we are aiming at a situation in which there is not any freedom of contract because there is a shortage of a necessary article, and that shortage has been occasioned partly by generations of neglect by the hon. and learned Gentleman's party and partly by the exigencies of the war in which we have been engaged, and that in those circumstances it is right that the State should step in and enact legislation to protect the weaker of the parties in negotiating what cannot fairly be described as a free contract. We should like to know whether the Opposition are officially taking a line that the State ought not to interfere in these circumstances? Are they against any rent control, and, if not, do they think that my right hon. Friend is wrong to have a Measure which deals with it under the circumstances in which this Bill applies?

Colonel Dower: We want the Government to get on with building houses.

Mr. Silverman: That is not quite what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants. He wanted to take advantage of what he alleged was the failure to build houses in order that his friends the landlords could make a profit out of that alleged neglect.

Mr. Marlowe: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does it not follow that we have not got a free market, and therefore, until we get a free market, the proper way to deal with this matter is to build enough houses to make a free market?

Mr. Silverman: Of course, it is. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, when it was in power for over 20 years, did not find that it was so very easy to build houses overnight. My right hon. Friend has built five or six times as many houses in a corresponding period after the end of the war as were built after the end of the previous war. That does not relieve us of the obligation in the meantime, while we are building houses more rapidly than the hon. and learned Gentleman's party ever did—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: rose—

The Chairman: Unless the hon. Gentleman gives way, the right hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to intervene.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman paid me the compliment yesterday of saying that I always waited for him to finish his sentence before I interrupted. I should like to finish the sentence on which I embarked, if only I could remember what it was, which I can no longer do.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In that case, perhaps I may complete the sentence on which the hon. Gentleman embarked, and then make my interruption. He said that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health was building houses far faster than the party to which I belong ever did or could have done. I am sure that on reflection he will not wish to advance that thesis, and I leave it to his fairness to consider whether he did not considerably exceed the statistical basis for his argument in that contention.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for reminding me of what I was saying. What my right hon. Friend has done has been to build houses in three years after the end of the Second World War many times more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party did in the corresponding period after the First World War. That, I take it, is not any longer, if it ever was, in dispute. I say further that he will continue to build houses far more rapidly than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's party has ever done. That I cannot yet prove, but the Government will do so after the next Election when it continues in power and has an opportunity of developing its policy even more rapidly.
The point I was making was that however short or long the time it may take, it is the obligation of any decent Government to protect people in the meantime, and to protect them in respect of contracts which they have been driven to make and which they would not have made except for the economic conditions which deprived them of any freedom of choice. It is interesting to see at this time that the Opposition are so greatly concerned to protect not those who are exploiting the victims of this situation but those who are making a profit out of it for what the hon. and learned Gentleman called an incentive. We prefer other incentives by relying on this Bill.

Mr. Janner: There is a very important Section of the Acts which some hon. Members have overlooked when making their arguments. I understood them to say that when a small rental is charged no premium can be exacted, no matter how long the period may be. That is not correct. The fact of the matter is that a premium may be charged and will be charged after the passing of this Measure. The Measure relates to houses within the purview of the principal Acts, and those Acts contain a proviso to the effect that if the rent is below two-thirds of the rateable value, the house does not come within the principal Acts at all; and secondly, if a person wants to give a very long letting after this Bill becomes an Act, he will still be able to do so and charge up to two-thirds of the rateable value, which is not an unreasonable amount in the sense of its being a small amount, and he will continue to do this in a way which those who want us to believe that the landlord is not properly protected, do not understand.
I want to make only one other point. I have intervened in these Debates from time to time because I felt that a considerable amount of argument was being adduced in order to convince the country that the Socialist Party is not prepared to act reasonably with the small landlord or with the tenant, or with any other party concerned. The fact of the matter is that these Acts were produced by the Tories. They excluded premiums, and we are doing precisely what they have been doing all along, namely, giving an opportunity of extracting a premium only if the rental is below two-thirds of the rateable value.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Now that we have been exonerated, vindicated and decorated by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I trust that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will hang his head in shame. We have heard a splendid vindication of the social policy of the Conservative Party in the years between the wars, against the somewhat splenetic condemnation by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. We can therefore get back again to the Bill.
We do not wish to enter now upon a Third Reading Debate, in which we shall

have many things to say about the provisions against the exaction of premium, but under present conditions of shortage, these are provisions, the necessity for which we recognise. We said so upon the Second Reading, when we drew attention to one of the difficulties inherent in the Bill as introduced, namely, that it dealt with certain classes of abuse and not with others. At a later date the Minister is to bring in a new Clause in response to that appeal which, it is only fair to say, was made from more than one side of the House.
Our general contention remains, however, that we do not think that a premium in itself is morally wrong. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went further and said that nobody on that side of the House had ever said that he was against rent as such. I looked at the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), and I could practically see his toes turning up in his boots, even through the somewhat substantial piece of furniture behind which he is sitting. He will not have omitted to remember the vehement denunciations of rent as robbery which the founders of his party have made.

The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying far too widely. He is introducing matter which I really cannot allow to be developed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was not going more widely than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. In fact, I had not embarked, nor did I intend to embark, upon a consideration of the general housing programme, not merely of the present Government but of previous Governments, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.

The Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears rather to be reflecting on the Chair. I allowed the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to deal with that matter because it had been referred to by a previous speaker on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's side of the Committee. I endeavour to divide my favours as evenly as possible, but there is a limit to them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I did not intend to go further than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had been allowed to go. I did not intend to say enough to bring me to the very narrow line which


the hon. Member was on the point of crossing when he veered and stood off on another tack.
The difficulties in which we are just now are those of shortage. Owing to those difficulties of shortage some control must be exerted upon premiums. That is agreed. The difficulty that we see is that we fear that the arrest of the process of paying a certain sum in advance may easily lead to the withholding of letting altogether in favour of a process of sale. All that may happen is that instead of having to raise a certain proportion of money from the landlord, the unhappy tenant will be forced to raise a much larger proportion of money from a bank. Sales of property in those conditions will be greatly increased and that process will inure to the disadvantage and not to the advantage of the class which this legislation is seeking to protect.
In the present position we do not deny, the House having decided the principle upon Second Reading, that there must be control of premiums in certain conditions. We accept that. That control will also be exercised in the case of assignments which the Minister is dealing with later. Therefore, we do not propose to divide the Committee against the Clause. We shall examine the Minister's proposals with a sympathetic mind because they meet the objections which we ourselves advanced upon the Second Reading.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3. —(PROVISIONS AS TO APPORTIONMENT WHERE SECTION 1 APPLIES.)

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out subsection (2).
Perhaps the Minister will give us an explanation of this subsection, which is not clear to me, however clear it may be to other hon. Members. As I understand the matter, if the subsection remains, where, in the case of a major property, a property which is part of it has its rent determined, then, in the words of the Bill,
in making any apportionment under the principal Acts for the purpose of ascertaining the standard rent of any other part of the property no regard shall be had to the determination under Section one of this Act.
The problem that arises here is of having two kinds of standard rent in one

and the same house, one for the whole dwelling and another for part of the dwelling which falls within the subsection. For that matter, there may be even more than one part of the dwelling with a different standard rent. Therefore, we are likely to have two standards of rent applying to various parts of the house. In the case of the principal dwelling the tenant already has the remedy of obtaining an apportionment under the 1920 Act and under the Act of 1939. No problem arises there.
What I cannot understand is the purpose of the subsection. Hence my Amendment to remove it. If the tribunal fixes a standard rent there will be two types of standard rent. We shall also have the effect that the total rent of the different parts of the house will bear no relationship to the standard rent of the whole house. It may well be that the new standard rent will be higher than the old standard rent, and higher than that which has been the apportionment of the old standard rent of the whole of the house.
I do not know whether I am making my meaning clear. It is all very "abstuse." There has been so much complication that it will be very easy for me to follow in the wake of some of the lawyers and to be found equally difficult to apprehend. I am doing my best to make myself understood. The Minister said, in the course of his speech upon an earlier Amendment which I withdrew, that the tenant could go either to the county court in relation to a whole house which comes within the present rent Acts, or he could go to the tribunal, if we have in mind what the Bill permits the tenant to do. That may be the answer, but it will not explain that there will still be two kinds of standard rent obtaining in one dwelling-house and that there are likely to be anomalies. I am trying to help to make the Bill more constructive and understandable.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The effect of the Amendment would be that the other tenants in the major property would have to have their rents raised, if the new reasonable rent for a particular part of the dwelling-house were taken into account. The remedy for the other tenants is clearly that of going before the rent tribunal and having their new reasonable rents determined. There is no


reason at all why they could not do that and it is obviously a desirable thing to do.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not wish to be thought "abstuse," to use the word which I thought was very happily coined by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and which I take it is a combination of the words "abstruse" and "obtuse." But I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the effect of the subsection in the case where property which comes within Clause 1 is the subject of a determination under that Clause and subsequently has to be let in different parts. It might perhaps be argued by a tenant who subsequently applied for an apportionment that this subsection applied, and that the part of the dwelling-house which he then occupied, being part of the original dwelling-house in respect of which a determination had been made, was in fact not the same and was therefore other than that dwelling house, and that, therefore, in making the apportionment in the county court, no regard was to be had to the determination. I may have misread the words, or perhaps the Minister has been advised that that is an impossible construction. If I am mistaken in this matter, perhaps the Minister will forgive me because no one would pretend that these matters are easy to understand.

Mr. Janner: A very important point has been raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). There happens to be an Act of 1938 which says that in order to obtain an apportionment on a dwelling-house which is part of another dwelling-house we must take into consideration the rent of the whole dwelling-house. We have enough confusion with these Acts already. I make this interjection in order to find out whether that will be in conflict with these new provisions. Otherwise a county court will be able to do what a rent tribunal is not able to do, and a rent tribunal may come to conclusions to which a county court would not come, by reason of the fact that the 1938 Act still prevails. I am raising this matter in the hope that the Minister will give me an explanation. It will be difficult to have two Acts on the Statute Book which conflict with each other.

Mr. Bevan: I should have thought that the language of the subsection, whatever else is obscure in the Bill, would be perfectly clear. It says here that the determination of the tribunal shall not affect a determination under the principal Act. It is sometimes better to read out the words, because we are still dependent upon the acoustics of the market-place to penetrate our understandings. The words are:
(2) Where the standard rent of a dwelling-house, being part of a property which is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply, has been determined under Section one of this Act, then in making any apportionment under the principal Acts for the purpose of ascertaining the standard rent of any other part of the property no regard shall be had to the determination under Section one of this Act.
I should have thought that those words reasserted the supremacy of the principal Act.

Mr. Piratin: Why should it be necessary for the tenant to apply to the tribunal, in view of the fact that the dwelling-house falls within the principal Act and he can go to the county court and obtain an apportionment on a lower standard than he is likely to get from the tribunal?

Mr. Bevan: I do not follow the point which my hon. Friend is making. The effect of leaving out the subsection is to call upon the tribunal to take into account the standard rent of the other parts of the house.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(REGISTER OF DETERMINA TIONS OF TRIBUNAL UNDER FORE GOING SECTIONS.)

6.0 p.m.

The Chairman: Mr. Sparks.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of Order, Major Milner. May I draw your attention to the fact that I have an Amendment down to this Clause in page 5, line 30, after "Act," to insert "and of the principal Acts."

The Chairman: I am sorry but the hon. Member's Amendment is out of


Order, as is also his Amendment in page 5, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(3) The register shall be so prepared and kept up to date so as to contain with regard to any dwelling-house in respect of which the principal Acts apply, being a dwelling-house in the area of the local authority, particulars of the standard rent of the dwelling-house in such form as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister of Health.
It is outside the Money Resolution.

Mr. Fletcher: May I make a submission to you on that point, Major Milner, because this seems to me to raise a point of some general importance? I understood you to rule that my first Amendment is out of Order because it is not covered by the Money Resolution. May I remind you that there is nothing whatever in the Money Resolution which was passed after the Bill had had its Second Reading which deals with this Clause? The ambit of the Money Resolution which was passed by the Committee is very narrowly drawn and drawn in such a way as to authorise the expenditure out of public funds of the money required to serve the purposes of the tribunal.
There is nothing in the Money Resolution which covers the expenses to which local authorities will be put by having to provide the register under Clause 4. I think that is appropriate to the case because, as I understand the position, it is unnecessary to have a Money Resolution to authorise expenditure by local authorities as distinct from the expenditure by the Exchequer. If I am right in thinking that, I find it difficult to understand why an Amendment which is merely designed to extend the scope of the register which local authorities are to be required to keep should be ruled out of Order because there is nothing in the Money Resolution about it. The whole object of the Amendment is to enable local authorities to carry out what is universally regarded as a desirable preliminary to any general review of these Acts.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. He must not, of course, argue the merits of the proposal. It is true that the Clause provides for a register to be kept of the determinations of the tribunal. This is a very small matter and on the

de minimis rule, it is not customary to provide for, it in the terms of a Financial Resolution. The hon. Member's proposal now is a very different one and would involve very substantial expenditure indeed, I am advised. In those circumstances, as some contribution would have to be made from the national Exchequer, it is necessary to have a Money Resolution.

Mr. Fletcher: I realise that the provision of a register of all rent controlled dwelling-houses will involve a greater expenditure by local authorities than the provision of a register for the purposes of the Act. Whether that increased expenditure is substantial or de minimis or something between the two, I do not think anybody can know, because from the language of the Amendment, it depends on what regulations are prescribed. The point has now emerged from your Ruling, Major Milner, that the expenditure which you have in mind will not be the expenditure of the central Exchequer but the expenditure of local authorities. I believe I am right in thinking that until a year or two ago, an Amendment could never have been ruled out of Order in a Committee of this House merely because it involved an addition to the expenditure of local authorities.
I realise that the position has changed to some extent now by virtue of the Local Government Act, 1948, which changed the method by which the central Exchequer makes contributions to the local authorities, but this particular point, if I remember rightly, was raised during the Second Reading Debate and the Committe stage of the Local Government Act, 1948. It was realised that it ought not to detract from the rights of hon. Members merely because under the Act of 1948 the Exchequer make their contributions to the revenues of local authorities on a different principle. I, therefore, suggest with great respect that this is a matter of some importance and that I should be allowed to move my Amendment in order to put before the Committee reasons designed to show that it is essential for the purposes of the general review of the Rent Acts which is contemplated that a necessary preliminary step should be authorised now by the House and undertaken without delay.

The Chairman: The question of merits does not enter into this matter. The point


I have to decide is whether under the Rules of the House the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is in Order. I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that it is not in Order because it is not covered by the terms of the Financial Resolution. The hon. Member is correct in saying that up to two or three years ago this might have been dealt with without the necessity for a Financial Resolution, but as he knows, the Local Government Act provided for contributions on a certain basis by the national Exchequer and his present proposal would attract a grant from the national Exchequer which I am advised would be very substantial. That would not come within the terms of the de minimis rule and that being the case, I have no alternative under the Rules of the House but to rule the Amendment out of Order.

Mr. Hogg: This seems to be a question of some substance and one which would perhaps have rather surprised those who made the change concerning local government finance in the Act. I wonder whether this is the first occasion on which this point has been raised. Although I appreciate the reasons which underlie your Ruling, Major Milner, it is an odd result of the Local Government Act, 1948, that we cannot now make provision for expenditure by local authorities because to do so would attract a block grant from the central Exchequer. The effect, oddly enough, is to take away from Private Members, though not from the Government, a right which they would hitherto have regarded most jealously.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, hon. Members cannot in any way challenge the Ruling which you gave, Major Milner, but I must say on the spur of the moment without having an opportunity to reflect very much about it—I trust that all I say will be regarded as tentative—that I should be surprised if it were the intention—it was certainly not my intention as the author of the 1948 Act—to so limit the rights of the House in this matter because it would be a most serious thing if the Government could resist any Amendment on the ground that too large a sum was imposed upon the Exchequer or for any other reason. It is rather a serious matter if hon. Members of the Committee or the House are inhibited

from putting down an Amendment merely on account of the fact that an additional activity by a local authority would attract such proportion of Exchequer grant as the increased expenditure of a local authority will give rise to. This is a matter upon which we ought to have some more discussion. It is a serious question indeed.

The Chairman: It may be of help to the Committee if I say that I am not in the least unsympathetic or in oppositon to the view expressed by the Minister, and I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to say that the possibility of such a result was pointed out at the time of the 1948 Act. For the moment I must stick to my Ruling, but I suggest that this is one of those matters which might be considered privately so that an endeavour may be made, if the House wishes, to find a way out of the difficulty for the future.

Mr. Marlowe: Would it be possible for the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to put his Amendment in Order by adding a manuscript Amendment to the effect that this should be a charge solely on local authorities?

Mr. Fletcher: While I must accept your Ruling, Major Milner, I should like, if I catch your eye, to say a word on the merits of this proposal on the Question "That the Clause stand part." I should like to make this observation about the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It seems to me to be very important that it should not emerge from this discussion that the rights of Members of the Front Bench in this respect are any greater than the rights of hon. Members in other parts of the House—

Hon. Members: They are.

The Chairman: I say at once that the hon. Member is perfectly correct in that. The Front Bench have no greater powers than other hon. Members.

Mr. Hogg: I think I was right in what I said originally. The rule is, I understand, that it is part of the custom of this House that increases in charge may be moved by Members of the Government, although of course it is true that a further Financial Resolution might be required at one stage or other. The effect would be that Members of the Govern-


ment could move Amendments one way or the other, increasing the activities of local authorities whereas Private Members could not because they never could initiate a Resolution in Committee. I therefore think I was right in substance in what I originally said.

The Chairman: I am not disputing whether the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is right or wrong. However, it is a fact, of course, that only the Government can initiate expenditure, but just as with any other hon. Member, they must work within the terms of the Financial Resolution passed either early or late as the case may be.

Mr. S. Silverman: Assuming as one must, and as I do, that the original Ruling was correct, is it not then very important indeed that regard should be paid to that fact whenever a Money Resolution is drafted? It is extremely unfortunate if the state of the Rules of the House is such that if a Money Resolution is tightly drawn, it prevents the Committee from discussing a point, whatever the ultimate results might be, when we all desire to discuss it and when the Government themselves would not wish us not to discuss it? It seems that if the effect of the Local Government Act is to produce this limiting effect upon the rights of Private Members afterwards, the Government might well have regard to that in considering the terms of Money Resolutions which they put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Bevan: It does not seem to me that very much damage has been done so far. The House may recollect that it has been found necessary to change the Rules governing the Private Bill Procedure because of the application to Private Bill legislation of the 1948 Local Government Act, and it is also obvious that, as the Chairman has said, as this would attract a charge from national funds, it is not open for Private Members to put down Amendments which have that effect. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) quite properly pointed that out. However, I think we might tonight leave it at the point where I will discuss what steps, if any, are necessary to liberate the House from the inhibitions imposed on it by the 1948 Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) for having raised the point.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was correct in regard to the Financial Resolution. It would, however, have been competent for the hon. Member for East Islington to raise his point when the Financial Resolution came before the Committee. Unfortunately that was not done.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "Minister may direct," and to insert "local authority may determine."
This is a minor Amendment which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to accept. The Clause as it stands says that the register must be in such place or places, and kept in such manner, as the Minister may direct. All this Amendment is asking is that the discretion shall be left to the local authorities. After all, they can carry out the provisions of this Clause quite well, and it seems redundant that the Minister in such a small matter shall lay down so precisely how the register shall be kept. The local authorities already have to keep a register of proceedings under the 1946 Act, and there is no reason why this register cannot be kept in similar form and discretion be allowed them as to the place and manner in which it is kept.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As my hon. Friend says, he has raised what is a small point; but this matter was considered when the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act was passed, where exactly the same provision stands. We see no good reason why the same provision should not be made in this Measure. It seems to us to have worked quite satisfactorily, and we do not propose that any change should be made.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. E. Fletcher: In common with every other hon. Member of the Committee, I welcome this Clause but regret that its effect is weakened by the limited nature of its provisions. It is agreed that a register is essential to record the decisions of these tribunals, but I regret that


the Clause does not go further and compel local authorities to compile a register showing the standard rents and the rents payable in respect of all rent-controlled dwelling houses within their area. Those of us who welcome the improvements that have been made in the Bill since its Second Reading regard it, apart from its intrinsic merits, as a prelude to a comprehensive review of the morass of Rent Restrictions Acts, but a first step towards that must be a compilation of the existing standard rents which now date back to 1915 and are difficult to understand. The point was put very well in a recent leading article in "The Times" which said:
If rent control"—

The Chairman: Clearly the hon. Gentleman cannot argue something on the Clause as a whole, which he was not permitted to argue on an Amendment which was out of Order. I have given him a little latitude, but he ought not to go into detail.

Mr. Fletcher: I accept your Ruling, Major Milner, and do not want to go into detail. I merely want to emphasise the point that, before we can get a comprehensive review of the rent Acts, we must have a register of existing rents payable under the existing Acts.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(TRIBUNAL FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 1.)

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that when an application is made under this Act the chairman or the clerk of the tribunal shall be an experienced lawyer.
It is obvious that there should be a lawyer, either as chairman or clerk, for the benefit of the tribunal and those who make application to it. I trust that my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that one or the other will be a lawyer.

The Chairman: It may be helpful if I say that I think that the following Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) might be discussed at the same time—in page 6, line 43, at end, add:

(6) The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words 'of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing.'

Commander Galbraith: I think these two Amendments might be taken together because they deal with the same point. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has asked that the chairman or the clerk of the tribunal shall be an experienced lawyer, and we ask that at least one member shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. In view of the intricate matters which will come before the tribunal in consequence of the passing of this Bill, I should have thought that an Amendment of this kind was called for, and that a tribunal should at least have as one of its members, a gentleman with fairly high legal qualifications; indeed, they might be required to be very high. We have had numerous discussions today during which we have heard lawyers of eminence completely opposed to one another as to the meaning of certain passages. If that happens in the House of Commons, I do not know what will happen with these tribunals. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment to which I have spoken, and which I will move later on.

The Chairman: I assume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates that along with the Amendment he has moved, there must also go the new Clause on page 698 of the Order Paper—

Composition of tribunals.

The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words "of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing."

Commander Galbraith: But I have not moved it.

The Chairman: I must have an understanding that the discussion on this matter, if there is to be one, must cover the new Clause also. It is obvious that we cannot have two discussions, and these Amendments cover the new Clause in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities on page 698.

Commander Galbraith: Yes, it is the same point.

Mr. Bevan: We are getting along well, but we have a long distance to go, and I was hoping that I would not be pressed upon this matter. Obviously, from the interchange that took place just now, if there are to be any lawyers, there should be only one because, if there are two, they will almost certainly quarrel with each other about interpretation, and if there are three, there will be permanent discord. I hope we shall not be limited by this because quite often it has the effect of making it more difficult to set up a tribunal quickly enough where it is insisted upon by the Statute that a certain profession—it does not matter which—should have some one of its number on the tribunal. It means that the administration has to hold up the appointment of a tribunal until a suitable person of that profession has been found. It quite often happens, too, that lawyers are exceedingly busy people.
There is another reason. It does not follow necessarily that these tribunals need legal assistance. They are fact-finding tribunals and, judging by experience in the House, no lawyer is able to look at a fact without reducing it to such a one-dimensional situation that it loses all humanity. I suggest, therefore, that it is essential to look at these facts in the round. I am not suggesting that it is a disqualification to be a lawyer because, when I give the figures of the tribunals, it will be shown that in the majority of cases a lawyer is included. Nor must it be supposed that lay tribunals reach decisions that are more readily challengeable in the courts than they would be if there were lawyers on the tribunal.

Mr. S. Silverman: Or less.

Mr. Bevan: I would not be too precipitate about that. The position will be seen from the figures. Some 23 tribunals in the country do not contain any legal gentleman or ladies, one of those tribunals has been challenged in the courts, and there has been one appearance. There are 40 tribunals with a legally qualified chairman; six have been challenged 12 times.

Mr. Marlowe: Does the Minister mean by appeal?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, by appeal to the courts. Their decisions were challenged six times.

Mr. Silverman: Were they challenged successfully?

Mr. Bevan: I have not got the decisions.

Mr. Hogg: That makes a difference.

Mr. Bevan: Does it? It means that if the appeal was successful, then it was against the lawyers, but only one appeal has been made against tribunals which had no lawyers on them. There are nine tribunals with a legal member who is not the chairman, and two of these have been challenged three times. I do not want to make too much of this point because it often happens that tribunals with legal chairmen are much busier, they have a much greater number of cases. Therefore, I give these figures rather facetiously without wishing to make any important deduction from them. However, I hope I shall not be pressed. It is fairly easy to get a lawyer—the figures show that in 49 cases out of 72 we have got a lawyer—but I would not like to be constrained to have a lawyer, because of the administrative inconvenience in finding a suitable person, and because these are primarily lay tribunals and not for the purpose of construing the law.

Mr. Marlowe: I want to make this point to the right hon. Gentleman. So far as appeals are concerned, there is no deduction to be drawn at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not take the figures seriously, but he ought not to have put them before the Committee as a guide because, as he knows, there is under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, no appeal except on the question of jurisdiction. That is the only ground upon which a case could go to the Court of Appeal. That completely disposes of any deductions which could be drawn from the appeals.

Mr. Bevan: How does that dispose of the argument that there may be no appeals against a tribunal after the passing of the Bill?

Mr. Marlowe: I agree, but the only appeal there may be is one of jurisdiction, and the question of whether a lawyer


is hearing the appeal is of no consequence for the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) proposing that lawyers should be on these tribunals. It is not often that lawyers receive support from the other side of the Committee. I assure him that we shall remember it in support of the hairdressers. The difficulty here is that there is no doubt that these tribunals will have to discharge an onerous task. It is not so much a question of their being what the right hon. Gentleman called fact-finding tribunals. Difficulties arise more on questions of interpretation. Everybody sitting on these tribunals has to interpret a great number of Statutes other than this one by itself. This one, as we have seen from the fact that it took us a whole day to get through Clause 1, is by no means easy to understand.
6.30 p.m.
There is another argument I want to put before the Committee. While there may have been a case under the 1946 Act for not having lawyers on the tribunal, because comparatively simple issues were involved there and, if the tribunal did make a mistake, no great harm was done because security of tenure was given only for three months, here a much more important principle is involved, for security of tenure is given virtually indefinitely. Therefore, these tribunals may be creating a statutory tenancy which may last for a term of years, which is a very different matter from the security for three months which existed under the 1946 Act. That, I think, brings the thing into quite a different category.
It is possible to argue that under the powers existing in the 1946 Act something in the nature of rough justice could he done, because it affected people for only three months. I suppose it is possible to accept rough justice for three months and to suffer an injustice for that time, but if a person feels aggrieved about the result of a decision of one of these tribunals he must go on suffering that grievance for year after year. That, I feel, is the strongest point which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into account. He ought to realise that these tribunals are adjudicating between

people for that length of time, for a time which fixes their contractual relationship over a very considerable number of years. I ask him to weigh that in the scales and to believe that, on that account, it detracts from the precedent which was set in 1946.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment. I remember that the English Act followed the Scottish one. It followed because Members of this House had gone to Scotland and found out how very successful the tribunals were proving in Scotland. But we did not have lawyers as chairmen. I was a member of a tribunal from the inception of the Act and can say that we had very competent chairmen indeed. The Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, in fact, would have had great difficulty in seeking lawyers.
From my experience in the House I find lawyers singularly unattractive and their political mind exceedingly baffling. Looking at hon. Members opposite, we can see a lawyer and an accountant sitting side by side. I very much prefer the hon. and gallant Member for Pollock (Commander Galbraith), who is an accountant. I think that if he were a member of a tribunal he would be just as competent—there is no disrespect in these remarks—as the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who is sitting on his right. I am quite certain also that most of the women of Glasgow think so.
There is another factor which concerns these tribunals. I feel that my hon. Friends on these Benches will very soon be asking that sheriffs shall preside over the tribunals. We are getting very far away from the spirit which dominated the inception of the Act, namely, that the tribunals should be very informal and that there should be nothing about them to deter simple people from coming forward with their cases. I do not find anything difficult in the Bill, which really will be very simple when we have finished with it. The regulations which are issued will be quite simple to follow. The Minister should, I think, have the benefit of accountants, valuers—we often do in Scotland, where we have competent valuers—and other valuable people presiding over these tribunals. These people hitherto have always presided with great


competence, and I hope that the Amendment to insist upon the legal mind will be dropped.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister gave two reasons for resisting the Amendment. With one I am in some sympathy, but with the other I am in less sympathy. I am in still less sympathy with what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann).
Of course, I should not desire to embarrass the Minister's administration of what is, obviously, an urgent temporary Measure, and I can well understand his argument that lawyers are so much sought after that they are difficult to obtain. I sympathise with his difficulties in that respect. I feel it my duty, however, to say a word or two in support of my sometimes rather maligned profession. We may be unattractive, as the hon. Lady thinks—we are not, of course, selected for our sex appeal—and I can well understand her preference for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), who is an accountant, to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), whom I have known from his schooldays and who has never been other than he is.
To turn to the serious matter of the Amendment, it is important that the Committee should not give way too much to its very understandable dislike of the want of attraction in lawyers. There are certain things which people think they can do for themselves about which they are very ready to resent interference. One I have noticed is that they always think they know what is good propaganda on their own side. Sometimes we see, on both sides of the House, examples of people not knowing quite as well as they think they do which arguments advance and which arguments do not advance their case.
Another thing I have noticed that people are very apt to think they can do for themselves, and are supremely ignorant of how badly they do for themselves and other people, is trying to administer justice. Justice is not an easy matter. It is not a matter which can simply be approached by a person of good will and common sense with any hope of arriving at consistently good results. In my time I have spoken to all sorts of lay tribunals as an advocate and I can assure

you, Major Milner, that there is no capacity in which one finds out their faults and weaknesses quicker than if one appears as an advocate, because then one has to exploit their weaknesses.
It is important that in the administration of justice of all kinds—and this is now one of the very important ways in which justice will be administered, and is actually being administered, in this country—those who have dedicated their lives to the subject should play an important. part. Hon. Members opposite are commonly friendly to appeals to trade union qualifications. I sympathise with them, and have always done so, in that approach to vocations of all sorts. The administration and the love of justice is something which is just as demandant of a dedicated life as other things and I do not myself view without apprehension the ready assumption which comes from hon. Members sometimes that that kind of experience and devotion is of no value. I hope that, as we are constantly, both now and in other connections, setting up new tribunals to administer justice in one way and another, we shall not disregard the need for qualified persons to administer it.
I was not impressed by the statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I think that he really put them forward seriously. He realised as well as did my hon. and learned Friend that these tribunals are tribunals from which there is no effective appeal. The only way in which their decision can be challenged is when their jurisdiction is in question. For that reason, it is all the more important that those who have made a professional study of this matter should be asked to play their full part in it. Therefore, although I certainly respect the argument which was put forward on the basis of practicability, I hope that the Committee will not listen favourably to what I must regard as irresponsible, mischievous and, I must add, meretricious appeals of the kind to which the hon. Lady has given voice.

Mr. Solley: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider his decision and accept one or other of the two Amendments or alternatively tell the Committee that at some later stage he may be able to meet the import of these Amendments by some other Amendment which will enable him.


wherever possible, to have as chairman somebody with legal qualifications. I should like to say immediately that no one has been more critical of my own profession in the House of Commons than myself. I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend not because of any false sense of loyalty to my profession—to which I am, of course, loyal—but because it would be in the best public interests if these Amendments or a similar Amendment were accepted by him.
The work of the tribunals under the Bill when it becomes law will be of a vastly different character from the work of the tribunals under the 1946 Act. I have had some small measure of professional experience in the working of that Act and I have complete confidence in the general efficiency of the tribunals set up under it. The work of tribunals under that Act is essentially of a very limited character. Their findings are purely findings of fact and it is very rare that any issue of law arises. Quite the contrary will be the case if this Bill becomes law. Tribunals will frequently find themselves faced with substantial difficulties of interpretation and with ascertaining what is the law, in relation not merely to this Measure but to the entire law of rent restriction. No one but a chairman experienced in law could really administer, and appear to administer, justice fairly in relation to the operation of the provisions of the Bill.
The Court of Appeal—and, indeed, the House of Lords—have frequently put on record their inability to understand the Rent Restrictions Acts. No lawyer in this Committee would dare to suggest that he could really understand them in their entirety. Yet we are thrusting upon the chairmen of these tribunals, not the question as to what is a fair rent for furnished premises, but the sort of problems which the House of Lords, the Court of Appeal, the judges in the King's Bench Division on appeal and county court judges cannot decide. [Interruption.] I can understand my hon. Friends thinking I am exaggerating, but when these matters come before a tribunal, not only are questions of fact likely to be involved, but mixed questions of fact and law.
6.45 p.m.
It would be in the best interests of the public if the chairman of a tribunal were

able properly to understand the issues involved in every case and to deal with them as an experienced lawyer would deal with them, that is to say, in accordance with the terms of the Statute and in accordance with the proper interpretation of the Statute. I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, not as lawyer, or on the ground that lawyers ought to be given work, but on the sole basis that it would be in the best interests of the community and of the poorer classes of the community, the working classes, if the chairman had legal experience, because if that were so these people would have a square deal.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the Committee to come to a decision? This is a perfectly simple point. Most of the tribunals have already been appointed and only a very small part of the country remains to be covered. I am not saying that in many of the important tribunals it is not necessary to have a lawyer as chairman. In fact, they do have such chairmen. I should have thought the Committee might leave it to me, might leave it to the administration, to see that in practice substantially what the Committee wishes to do is done, but not to make it a statutory obligation. Some of these tribunals in more remote districts do not want a lawyer as chairman and often a layman is quite as good as a lawyer.
I also point out to the Committee that it would gravely embarrass some of the lawyers if someone were taken out of the tribunal in order to appoint another chairman. They would be examining him to see if he were better than his predecessor. I think we might get on and not insist on the Amendment, but take it for granted that where the tribunals have substantial work to do substantial people are appointed.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I feel I should make a few observations at this stage, particuarly in consequence of the remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). I do not know what I have done to call upon myself her hostile animadversion, but I shall take such steps as are within my power—

Mrs. Mann: rose—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Allow me to finish the sentence—to seek to induce her to change her feeling about the


absence of attraction in my hon. and learned Friends and myself. This matter goes deeper that the outward appearance of the tribunal. I am not quite clear, from what the right hon. hon. Gentleman said, whether he accepts in principle the desirability, in every case in which a vacancy occurs, of appointing someone legally qualified. His argument was, in the first place, that there was difficulty in finding lawyers. I should have thought that was not a very substantial difficulty, nor one which might not have been easily overcome.
He went on to argue in his later observations that it was not always desirable because, after all, these were fact-finding bodies. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect the pressure put upon the Secretary of State for War from time to time to secure the presence of a trained lawyer upon courts martial—in an advisory capacity it is true—which, in the vast majority of cases, are nothing but fact-finding bodies. He will also bear in mind that under the original Workmen's Compensation Acts provision was made for arbitration and there was the same argument that a lawyer was not necessary to decide and find the facts, but, as we all know, under those Acts the matter was dealt with by county court judges. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the clearest possible assurance that he will spare no effort to find lawyers and will also appoint lawyers with these qualifications on every possible occasion.

Mr. Sparks: I have listened to what the Minister said upon this Amendment and I think his attitude is reasonable. He has accepted the principle and spirit of the Amendment and we have no right to impose upon him a measure which is impracticable administratively. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): I am calling the next Amendment, in page 6, line 43, but a discussion cannot be permitted on it.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, at the end, to add:
(6) The Schedule to the Act of 1946 shall, from such date as the Minister may by regulation appoint, have effect as though at the end of paragraph 1 there were added the words ' of whom at least one shall be a barrister or a solicitor of not less than seven years' standing.'
While we regret it, we feel that the difference is so great between the 1946 Act and the present Bill that we ought so far as possible to insist on this Amendment receiving the consent of the Committee and, therefore, we shall have to divide the Committee.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 286.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[6.54 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Eccles, D. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Assheton Rt. Hon. R
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Barlow, Sir J.
Erroll, F. J.
Low, A. R W


Bennett, Sir P
Fletcher, W.(Bury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Lyttelton, Rt Hon O


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale.)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C


Boothby, R.
Gage, C.
McCallum, Maj D


Bower, N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Galbraith, T G D. (Hillhead)
McFarlane, C S


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Gammans, L D
Mackeson, Brig H R


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Glyn, Sir R
McKie, J. H (Galloway)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maolay, Hon J. S


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Granville, E (Eye)
Maolean, F H. R. (Lancaster)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, R V.
Macm lan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Byers, Frank
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Carson, E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V
Maitland, Comdr J W


Challen, C
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C
Manningham-Buller, R E.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marlowe, A A H


Clifton-Brown, Lt-Cot. G
Herbert, Sir A. P
Maude, J C


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir J


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Molson, A H E


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hutchison Lt.-Cdr Clark (Edin'gh, W)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Darling, Sir W Y.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Morrison, Maj J. G (Salisbury)


Davies Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jarvis, Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cireneester)


De la Bere, R
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jennings, R.
Orr-Ewing. I L.


Dowor, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Keeling, E H.
Osborne. C


Drayson, G. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Drewe, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.




Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Studholme, H. G.
White, Sir D, (Fareham)


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Robinson, Roland
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Scott, Lord W.
Teeling, William
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)



Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearman, A. C. M.
Wadsworth, G.
Major Conant and


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Walker-Smith, D.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Batham)
Fernyhough, E.
Lipson, D. L.


Albu, A. H.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Logan, D G.


Alpass, J. H.
Follick, M.
Longdon, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foot, M. M.
Lyne, A W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McAllister, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McEntee, V. La T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McGhee, H. G


Ayles, W. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McGovern, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gibbins, J.
Mack, J. D.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
McKinlay, A. S.


Barstow, P. G.
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Maclean, N (Govan)


Barton, C.
Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, F.


Battley, J. R.
Grierson, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W H.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Berry, H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Beswick, F.
Gunter, R. J
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bevan, Rt. Han. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Guy. W. H.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bing, G. H. C.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Binns, J.
Hale, Leslie
Medland, H. M


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Messer, F.


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Harrison, J.
Mikardo, lan


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Haworth, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Monslow, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S


Burden, T. W.
Hicks, C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Burke, W. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Carmichael, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Mort, D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Moyle, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Murray, J. D.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Naylor, T. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Collick, P.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paget, R. T.


Collindridge, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Cooper, G.
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jay, D. P. T.
Parkin, B. T.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe.)


Crawley, A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S. E,)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cullen, Miss
Jenkins, R. H
Pearson, A.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Douglas
Peart, T. F.


Daines, P
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Piratin, P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, Jack (Bolton)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Deer, G.
King, E. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Pryde, D. J


Diamond, J
Kinley, J.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Kirby, B. V.
Randall, H. E,


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Ranger, J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lang, G.
Rankin, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lavers, S.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reeves, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.
Rhodes, H.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Leslie, J. R.
Richards, R.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Levy, B. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Ewart, R.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Fairhurst, F.
Lindgren, G. S.
Rogers, G. H. R.







Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Stross, Dr. B.
Weitzman, D.


Royle, C.
Stubbs, A. E
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Sargood, R
Swingler, S.
Wells, W T (Walsall)


Scollan, T.
Sylvester, G. O.
West, D G.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Symonds, A. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Segal, Dr. S.
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Shacklelon, E. A. A
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Sharp, Granville
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wigg, George


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A B.


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Silverman, S. S (Nelson)
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Simmons, C J
Timmons, J
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Skeffington, A. M.
Titterington, M F
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skinnard, F. W
Tolley, L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Willis, E.


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Solley, L. J.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S.


Sorensen, R. W.
Walkden, E.
Vales, V. F.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Walker, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stamford, W.
Warbey, W. N.



Steele, T.
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Watson, W. M.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.


Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH LAND LORD.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, after "contract," to insert:
made on or after the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
This Amendment might conveniently be considered with two subsequent Amendments which, like this one, stand in the names of myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Deritend (Mr. Longdon) and Ladywood (Mr. Yates). They are: In Clause 7, page 7, line 20, after "accommodation," to insert:
in common with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons where the occupation arises from a contract of tenancy entered into before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, or.
In Clause 8, page 9, line 9, at the beginning, to insert "Except as aforesaid."
They all relate to the same subject matter. It is a question of moving a certain section of tenants from the protection provided under Clause 6 to that provided under Clause 7. Clauses 6 and 7 both attempt to stop a gap in the principal Acts which was created by the decision of the courts in the case, of Neale versus del Soto. In that case and in other cases it was decided that where accommodation more especially kitchen accommodation, was shared either between the landlord and the tenants or between two

tenants, the dwelling was not a separate dwelling within the meaning of the Act, and that therefore the protection of the principal Acts do not extend to the tenants. Clauses 6 and 7 endeavour to stop that gap in two days. The case of the tenant who shares with his landlord or with his landlord and other persons is dealt with under Clause 6. Such tenants are given only the limited protection provided under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which means that if a case has not already come before a tribunal for the determination of rents, there is nothing to prevent the landlord from giving notice to quit, and there is no security of tenure.
Clause 7 applies to tenants who share accommodation. They receive the protection of the principal Acts, which means that they get security of tenure. The question of security of tenure is obviously extremely important. It seems a pity that the damage done by the case of Neale versus del Soto is not repaired to a larger extent. I can appreciate the argument which the Minister has advanced on other occasions so far as the question of tenancies shared between landlords and tenants are concerned. In these cases it is desirable that no discouragement should be given to owners of houses or tenants who wish to sublet to other tenants, and therefore it is felt that if the wider protection of the principal Acts were applied to any kind of tenancy it might discourage lettings, thus preventing the letting of accommodation which might otherwise have been available.
That point is met in these Amendments because they do not propose to transfer all tenancies shared with the landlords so as to provide those concerned with the protection of the principal Acts, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7. In substance only existing tenancies—and the date of 1st February has been taken as the arbitrary dividing line—will be protected, but future tenancies are only to be protected under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, so that every inducement is given to landlords or owners of houses and tenants to continue to sublet.
If these Amendments are accepted they will definitely improve the lot of the tenant who shares premises with the landlord at present. I know from wide experience that great hardship is involved in these cases on account of the lack of security of tenure. These people are subject to eviction and in many cases the consequence is that they lead a most unhappy life because that fact is exploited against them. I know it is said that in many cases a landlord who is tied to a tenant in the same house and who cannot possibly end the bond between them is in a difficult position. That may very well be so in certain cases, but from my own experience the number of cases in which the tenants are faced with hardship and are victimised on account of their lack of security is far greater. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister, by accepting these Amendments, to give the added protection for which I ask.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. Without wishing to be in the least obstructive, but merely seeking information, may I ask if it is possible for the hon. Member to move all these Amendments at this stage? I quite appreciate that, for the convenience of the Committee, they can be discussed together, but can they be moved at this stage?

The Temporary Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member was moving the first one and reciting the other two for the greater convenience of the Committee.

Mr. J. Silverman: That is so.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not so understand it. If that is so, I beg the pardon

of the hon. Member and I beg your pardon, Mr. Butcher. I merely sought to clarify the situation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Amendment which my hon. Friend is seeking to insert here is one which I fear we cannot accept. There is a clear distinction between the case of the tenant who is sharing with the landlord, and the case of the tenant who is sharing with other tenants. In fact, my hon. Friend has agreed that that is the position. It would. be quite an arbitrary decision to establish this date line which would make a further distinction betwen different classes of tenants sharing with the landlord.
It is quite well understood in the Committee that where these agreements have been made between tenant and landlord they are essentially, by their nature, very much subject to change. Circumstances may alter very considerably, and we feel it would be unreasonable to attach to those agreements the full provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. Had the landlord known the position at the time it would have made it very difficult for him to accept tenants on those sort of terms. Although my hon. Friend has been careful to assure us that he did not mean this to apply to future cases of this sort—

Mr. J. Silverman: It does not.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Although that is so, we think it would be unfair to make this purely arbitrary decision between one group and another. I would remind the Committee that the tenant will have the very real protection of the 1946 Act, which protects him against unreasonable rent, and should unreasonable rent be charged, the excessive—

Mr. J. Silverman: It does not prevent him from being evicted, which is the important point.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It would not prevent eviction where no application has been made on unreasonable rent. I realise that there are hardships on both sides, but we have to be reasonable about this.
In our view it would be unfair on the landlord, who has come to this agreement in sharing with tenants, to put him into this special category. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this point, because we have already gone a good way to


meet cases of difficulty of this sort and we feel it would be unreasonable to go further.

Mr. J. Silverman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH OTHER PERSONS BUT NOT WITH LANDLORD.)

7.15p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, to leave out "living," and to insert "shared."
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the next two Amendments in page 8, namely, to leave out subsection (5) in line 21, and to leave out "living" and to insert "shared" in line 31, were taken together. They have been put down for exploratory purposes and to obtain, if possible, a clear exposition of the effect of this Clause in certain particulars.
Having read the Clause several times, I feel that it will add very considerably to the difficulties which lawyers have to face in dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts. I must refer to the other part of the Clause to enable the points to be made clearly. In the first place, the Committee will see that "separate accommodation" is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1). In paragraph (b) one notices the phrase "shared accommodation," and paragraph (c) provides for the reversal of the authority which decided that where accommodation was shared it was outside the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
On finds in subsection (3) that the shared accommodation, if I understand its effect correctly, shall not be deemed to be let for the first time in consequence of its being left for that shared accommodation; but in subsection (4) one finds an entirely new expression inserted, namely "living accommodation." So that we have in this Clause, "separate accommodation," which is presumably living accommodation; "shared accommodation" and yet another phrase, "living accommodation" which subsection (5) seeks to define in a fashion which, to me at least, is almost

incomprehensible. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain what is meant by paragraph (a) of subsection (4). It is there stated that:
Any such change of circumstances as is mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection"—
that is, subsection (3)—
being a change affecting living accommodation used by the tenant in common with others, shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent.
How can a change of circumstances be deemed to be an alteration of rent? To what extent will the rent be altered by such a change of circumstances? How much will it be increased or decreased? There does seem to be something wrong in the drafting of that subsection. I entirely fail to see how it can said that change of circumstances in itself amounts to an alteration of rent.
When one goes on to subsection (5), which is also dealt with in these Amendments, and which seeks to provide for the definition of the expression "living accommodation," it really is most difficult to see what it means, having regard to the fact that the earlier part of the Clause seeks to divide the accommodation occupied by the tenant into two categories, the separate accommodation of which he is in sole and exclusive possession, and the shared accommodation. This "living accommodation" apparently
means accommodation of such a nature that the fact that it constitutes or is included in the shared accommodation is sufficient to bring the tenancy within paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) of this Section.
It may be necessary to have these three different types of accommodation referred to and separately defined in this one Clause—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to convince us that it is—but I should have thought that great advantages from the point of view of administration and the determination of cases would ensue if we could reduce these three categories to two, "separate accommodation" and "shared accommodation." The addition of this third category, "living accommodation" is bound to cause difficulty and confusion. I cannot see what "living accommodation" is meant to cover which is not already satisfactorily covered by the expressions "shared accommodation" or "separate accommodation."

Mr. Blenkinsop: This Amendment is not a matter of very great concern. As


a matter of fact, as at present drafted, it is almost meaningless, simply because the Bill—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did point out these three Amendments had been put down merely as a peg on which hang a request for an explanation. I must say, with great respect, that the hon. Gentleman will be wasting the time of the Committee if he occupies time in pointing out defects in Amendments which are merely put down for the purpose of eliciting an explanation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In the past the definition of "living accommodation" has been difficult because of the varied circumstances taken into account by the courts. The intention in this Measure was to ensure that the definition of "living accommodation" should be so broad as to cover the interpretations the courts may put upon it. For example, what may be regarded as living accommodation in one case is not necessarily living accommodation in another.
It is not clear to us why, where accommodation is shared changes in what is not living accommodation in the ordinary sense of that term—for example, in bathrooms, coal cellars, and so on—should automatically lead to an alteration in rent. Where there have been changes in the living accommodation it is clear that, whatever the changes may be, there does attach a complete change in the whole tenancy agreement. By making this distinction between living accommodation and shared accommodation we are trying to ensure that minor changes in the use of shared accommodation—it may be, as I say, a bathroom or a coal cellar—should not be a matter of issue, whereas a change in living accommodation is clearly at matter which concerns us.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. Is he saying that living accommodation is equivalent to separate accommodation?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, but the difficulty in attempting to define precisely what is living accommodation would be that a change in interpretation in the courts might necessitate an alteration in the Bill. In drawing this definition as widely as possible we are seeking to avoid that difficulty. I do not think that

there is very much in this. We should be glad to be able to meet the hon. and learned Member as far as we possibly can, but I hope he will appreciate that we are anxious, by this definition of "shared accommodation," to ensure that the minor issues should not be raised as matters of consequence.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I feel that the Committee will be rather disappointed at the reply which has just been made by the Parliamentary Secretary in answer to the lucid request of my hon. and learned Friend for an explanation of certain matters in this Clause. I must, as a lawyer, protest against the terms in which the Clause is at present cast. It is sometimes suggested that lawyers like elaborate and even ambiguous phraseology; I have never myself found that to be true; and must say that I have rarely met in any Act of Parliament provisions quite so ambiguous and difficult to comprehend as some of the provisions in this Clause. I do beg the Parliamentary Secretary to try, between now and the Report stage, to get this Clause redrafted in a more workmanlike form. If the Clause in its present form is enshrined on the Statute Book it will be a disgrace to this Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to subsection (5), which defines "living accommodation." So far as I understood the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am quite willing to believe that I may have imperfectly understood him—this definition is cast in deliberately wide terms. It seems to be cast in such wide terms as to be virtually meaningless to anybody attempting to construe it. It is. in my submission, very bad draftsmanship to have this very widely and loosely phrased definition referring back to subsection (1,c). Reading those two provisions together is, to say the least, singularly unenlightening, even to those whose customary practice it is to have to read and understand these things. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has most inadequately answered my hon. and learned Friend's request, and I should like him to assure the Committee that he does not really feel that degree of complacency with this Clause as at present drafted which his words have so far led us to suppose.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must confess that I am a little disappointed at


the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my request for an explanation. This Clause appears to expand the area of obscurity already around the Rent Restrictions Acts, and if anything the Parliamentary Secretary's reply sought to expand it a little further. In spite of his explanation, I have been looking at the Clause once again, and I should like him to tell me whether this is not the position. If it is the position, then perhaps a little redrafting would make it clearer and we could pass on.
One starts with living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house; that will bring the premises within the Rent Restrictions Acts, provided the other limits apply. If the living accommodation in a separate dwelling-house can, for the purpose of the points about which I am asking an explanation, perhaps be ignored, are we concerned here only with the living accommodation in the part of the premises which is shared; and is the whole effect of subsections (4) and (5) that, where living accommodation is shared, as distinct from, say, a passage between different tenants, that should result in an alteration of the rent? It occurs to me that that may be the meaning of this obscure Clause, that you should not take into account the sharing of a passage as bringing about an alteration of rent, but the sharing of anything coming within the definition of living accommodation. If that should be the intention, I think the Clause is extremely obscurely drafted.
7.30 p.m.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether that is the intention, and if it is, to make every endeavour to clarify the drafting between now and the Report stage. It is rather nonsense to say that a change of circumstances, as set out in subsection (4), shall be deemed to be an alteration of rent. That does not seem to me to be correct drafting. I should like him to say whether I am correctly interpreting now the intention of this subsection, and also to try and put it in simpler and clearer language between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman has correctly put the point. The whole object of this subsection is as he suggests, that we sould ensure that, when changes occur where living accom-

modation is shared, there is opportunity for regarding that as, in fact, part of the change of rent; but we also want to ensure, as he suggested, that the other matters I have mentioned—he referred to a passage, I referred to a coal cellar—should not be regarded as coming within the ambit of that change. As I am advised, that position is provided for under this subsection as drafted, and although careful consideration has been given to it, it has not been found possible to bring forward any simpler or clearer wording to accomplish that design. Therefore, as advised, I am bound to stand by the wording as it is to accomplish precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I hope I misheard the Parliamentary Secretary. He mentioned two points, a passage and a coal cellar. One may be of no material value in shared accommodation; but in an extreme case, to deny somebody access to a coal cellar might be a very real disadvantage. I do not quite know how far we are getting. The other point is this. When he first spoke, he gave the impression that this was drafted ambiguously and he admitted—

Mr. Blenkinsop: Broadly.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes. I think loosely was also an expression used. He seemed to imply that that was done in order not to upset the effect of previous legislation. I hope he did not have that in mind, because that is something we could not possibly accept.

Mr. Molson: The Parliamentary Secretary, as a result of his two speeches, has made us understand what the Government wish to achieve. With the best will in the world we have not been able to understand this Clause by ourselves. This is an operative Clause, which all the tribunals in the country will be required to understand. It is therefore of the utmost importance that it should be drafted in such a way that they are likely to be able to understand the intention of the Government, which I do not doubt the Committee will accept. The Parliamentary Secretary said he will have to stand by this drafting. I hope he means—and I appeal to the Minister, who has just come in—that he stands by the sense of this Clause, and that an


effort will be made to try and redraft it so that it will be much simpler, and likely to be understood in the same way by all the numerous tribunals.

Mr. Bevan: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here. There will be no difficulty on the part of the tribunals in construing this language, because it is not new. It is almost completely imported from the Act of 1920, which, speaks of limitation of accommodation as of itself an alteration of rent. In Section (2) (3) of that Act, it is stated:
Any transfer to a tenant of any burden of liability previously borne by the landlord shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as an alteration of rent.
So the same principle is followed as here, because obviously if a person has had the benefit of certain accommodation which was of advantage to him and that accommodation has been withdrawn, it is tantamount to an increase in rent, because actually he is paying the same for less. Although the language here is obscure, it is no more obscure than it has been since 1920. Although I say at once that I will look at it to see if it can be made clearer still—for I see no reason why we should not be as clear as is physically and intellectually possible—I hope that if we do not succeed in doing so I shall not be charged with not having fulfilled a pledge.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Surely the Minister does not suggest that the wording in subsection (5) and the reference back to subsection (1, c) is taken from previous legislation?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The words "alteration of rent" are found in the 1920 Act, but I should have hoped that we might have made some progress. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he will look into this, and I want to make one suggestion, because we do want to get it as well drafted as possible. If it is not well understood it will give rise to more litigation than any other part of the Bill. The suggestion I put to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration is this: that he should seek to emphasise in this subsection that, where the phrase "living accommodation" is used, it is not meant to apply to the whole of the occupation held by the

tenant. I think that is one of the things that misleads people in reading it. He has assured the Committee, but it is not easily perceptible. It was not until we had heard the Parliamentary Secretary twice that it became clear to us. I think a little redrafting may make it easier for the people who will have to act on this Statute, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attitude he has adopted to what we have said.

Sir J. Mellor: May I remind the Committee that the Act of 1920 has had to be construed by the county courts, and not by tribunals of this character, which is quite a different matter? May I also remind the Minister of the comments of the Ridley Tribunal on the chaotic condition of the law, and the great difficulty of anyone understanding it?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(POWER OF TRIBUNAL UNDER ACT OF 1946 TO EXTEND SECURITY OF TENURE.)

Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Section five of the Act of 1946 shall be read and have effect as if for the word "three" there were substituted the word "six.
I would like to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment standing in my name at the bottom of the page, in line 21, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 26. It is consequential upon this Amendment.
In Section 5 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act of 1946 power is given for tribunals to postpone the operation of notices to quit served on tenants who have made application to a tribunal. The maximum period of postponement is three months. In other words, the tribunal can give three months' security of tenure by postponing any notice to quit for that period. It is proposed in this Bill to extend that power by three-monthly periods thereafter. My Amendment proposes to extend that three-monthly period of security of tenure to
six months, in the first instance. The


alternatives are not necessarily three months or six months, but it can be up to six months, in the first instance. I propose that from that period, thereafter, there should be power to extend the period for three-monthly intervals.
My second Amendment proposes to delete a paragraph completely. The proviso laid down in the Bill makes it clear that there is to be no extension for successive three-monthly periods if the full period of three months was not given in the first instance. In other words, if the tribunal gave only two months' security of tenure it would have no power to extend such security for a further period. My second Amendment proposes to give the tribunal power for this further extension of security of tenure or, in other words, if instead of giving six months' security of tenure the tribunal decided to give only four months, then the tribunal would have power under my Amendment at the end of that four months to extend the security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.
What the Amendments seek to achieve is, first, to extend the period of security of tenure from a limit of three months to a limit of six months; and secondly, where in the first instance the tribunal decide not to give the maximum but give any period up to the six months, instead of being deprived of the power to give a further extension of security the tribunal should have the power to extend security of tenure by further three-monthly periods.
This is a rather difficult and complicated matter to explain, but I think the Minister will understand my point, the essence of it being that the tribunal should be allowed to grant up to six months' security of tenure instead of the present maximum of three months and that where, in the first instance, a lesser period is granted the tribunal should have power to give a further period of security of tenure if they think it desirable.

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in page 9, line 20, at the end. to insert:

so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We find it a little difficult to discuss together, Amendments which are diametrically opposite. We have had a little difficulty with that before and, if I may say so, it puts us, and I think it puts the Committee, in rather a difficulty, because there are two arguments going on contrary to each other.

Mr. Bevan: I would like to support the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in that view. The purpose of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is to extend the power of the tribunal and to give more security of tenure. The purpose of the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is to give less power. I think it would cause less confusion if we dealt with the Amendments separately.

The Temporary Chairman: If it is the wish of the Committee we will adopt that procedure.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: In that case, I will deal with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. The position is very simple and I do not think we need spend much time on it. When the Act of 1946 was a Bill and was before the House, I was warned by many of my hon. Friends that the security of tenure was not sufficient, that tenants who went to a tribunal would be victimised and that many tenants would be deterred from going to a tribunal for fear of victimisation. I was not unsympathetic to that contention, but I was exceedingly anxious that such security of tenure should not be given to tenants as would make landlords frightened to provide furnished accommodation and, therefore, would limit the amount of accommodation available, especially in London. Nevertheless, it has been obvious that a great deal of vindictiveness has taken place on the part of some landlords and some principal tenants and, therefore, that further protection is required. But I would ask my hon. Friends to keep in mind that although this Bill gives further protection it is still necessary not to give such security of tenure as would frighten


people away from providing accommodation. I consider that in the Bill we are doing all that is necessary to satisfy the two purposes.
Turning to his point about the first application, obviously if a tribunal has not given three months' security on the first application then it has already taken into consideration all the factors and there is no reason at all for a second application. It will have decided on the first application that in these circumstances two months' security is enough. We must keep before our minds all the time that when people are sharing accommodation exceedingly bitter personal friction can arise, especially when they are sharing furnished rooms and common accommodation. I need not emphasise, because we all know it so well, that it is difficult enough for men to agree together for long. When women have to share the same kitchen the most frightful circumstances can arise. Indeed, so temperamental are they, that they can change over-night and there can be unpleasantness before three months have passed. If we are to give six months for domestic strife to mature, heaven knows what might happen. I suggest, therefore, that the renewal of security for three months at a time is all that is necessary in the circumstances and I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Sparks: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in line 17, after the word "served," to insert the words:
whether before or after the reference to the tribunal.
I move this Amendment more for the purpose of getting an explanation of the position than for the purpose of insisting upon it if it should be contested. This is an extremely important Clause of the Bill. Although my right hon. Friend said that the present extension of the notice proposed under the Bill is sufficient, nevertheless it is highly important that we should give security of such a nature that it is real security. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can help me, but I am not sure whether the Clause as it stands applies to a case where notice has been given

before a tribunal is actually called upon to deal with the rent.
A person who is aggrieved about the rent negotiates with his landlord. In the course of those negotiations the landlord serves him with a notice to quit. In present circumstances, as soon as that notice to quit is served the security of the tenant is completely gone, irrespective of the result of the tribunal findings. I think that is the position under the law today. A tenant who gave notice for the reference to the tribunal was covered to the extent of three months, or such period as the tribunal decided; but a tenant who was given notice immediately before the reference was made by him was deprived of any security at all.

Mr. Bevan: I think I can allay my hon. Friend's apprehensions. I have put down an Amendment which seeks to secure that the tenant is secured in his possession until seven days after determination by the tribunal—after determination, so it does not matter when the notice is.

Mr. Janner: This is not merely my case. I do hope my right hon. Friend will make this Clause as clear as he possibly can, because I have been approached by the tribunal in my own constituency about this matter, the chairman of which is a very experienced lawyer, and a man who has had a considerable amount of experience in the conduct of the tribunals. His fear is this. He says, for example, that in Leicester itself they have had several instances in which notices to quit have been served a few hours before the applications were made because the applicants had foolishly informed their landlords of their intention to make the applications. I hope the Committee can see how very important this is. Of course, if my right hon. Friend assures me that his Amendment which he has put down will cover the point, irrespective of when the notice is served, irrespective of whether it is served before or after application, I shall be prepared to accept the position.

Mr. Bevan: I must not be assumed to have accepted that interpretation. We are not concerned with the notice upon the tenant but with the notice to the tribunal. First the tenant must have made application to the tribunal for the rent to be


reduced. The purpose of my Amendment is that once that notice has been served on the tribunal to review the rent the person cannot be ejected until at least seven days after the tribunal has adjudicated.

Mr. Janner: I am sorry to persist, but will my right hon. Friend say whether that means that if a notice to quit has been served before the applicant makes his application, what he now says applies. It does not apply today. This is a very important matter. I do not think there is anything between us really, but we ought to know that. It does not apply today.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is that it ought not to. I cannot understand my hon. Friend. This is not a Bill for the purpose of giving security of tenure. It is a Bill for the purpose of fixing reasonable rents for furnished lettings. A landlord may serve a notice upon a tenant, but the tribunal is not clairvoyant. The tribunal comes into operation only when it is invoked. It would obviously be unreasonable for a person who is in occupancy of a furnished letting to frustrate the intention of the landlord, who may properly want to get rid of him. We must not always assume in these circumstances that the persons occupying the furnished lettings are invariably the persons with justice on their side. Remember, we are talking about shared accommodation and about principal tenants—persons who are tenants, not landlords only. As soon as a notice is served on a tenant, according to my hon. Friend's desire he can immediately frustrate that by application to the tribunal for review of the rent.
We have sought to see to it that a notice does not run out and that a tenant is not put upon the street before the tribunal has had an opportunity to arbitrate. What my Amendment proposes, therefore, is that as soon as the notice is served on the tribunal asking for an arbitration the tenant is protected for seven days after the decision.

Mr. Janner: I do not understand why the Minister has adopted that attitude. This trouble has arisen because of the fact that at the present time, if a landlord gives a tenant notice to quit, and the tenant puts in his application to the tribunal to have the rent properly

assessed—it does not matter if it is only an hour or two beforehand—the tenant is not protected.

Mr. Bevan: Why?

Mr. Janner: That is precisely what I am trying to argue in my Amendment. This is the whole purpose of my Amendment. I see now the Minister does not intend to concede it. I will explain to the Minister why. If two people are negotiating for the purpose of fixing a rental, and if the landlord chooses to serve a notice upon the tenant, knowing he will most likely go to the tribunal, if he serves a notice only an hour before the tenant puts in his application, the tenant is deprived of the rights which are allowable if the notice is not served. I am talking of a term which is still current. If I can be assured that that notice will not deprive the tenant of his right to go to the tribunal, I shall be satisfied. If not, I think the Committee ought to insist that the matter should be dealt with in a manner that will afford the tenant reasonable and proper protection.

Mr. Sparks: There is something in the point advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). Many people come to me about this sort of thing. If a tenant feels that the rent he is paying for shared accommodation is too high the only way he can get protection for himself is to go straight to the tribunal without saying anything to the landlord. If there is a preliminary discussion between himself and the landlord, as in many cases there is, and the landlord refuses to reduce the rent, and the tenant still thinks it is too much and says, "I think I shall go to the tribunal," the landlord serves notice on him straight away and the case is not referable to the tribunal. There are cases in which tenants have been deprived of access to the tribunals because, before applying to the tribunals, they have first tried to reach agreement with their landlords, and in which the landlords have "put one over them" by giving them notice to quit before they could go to the tribunals.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have listened to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and the Minister very carefully, and I have been frying to make up my mind which of


them is right in regard to the main purpose of the Bill. I think that on this occasion the Minister is right, and that it would not be right for those of us who opposed the Minister on other occasions not to say that we believe he has adopted the right position. On the other hand, the hon. Member for West Leicester is a lawyer and the Minister is not. Can the Minister tell the House that he has the legal authority behind him for the statement which he has made. I think that he probably has, but this is a very complicated matter, and there must be a certain amount of sympathy with the position taken up by the hon. Member for West Leicester. I think, therefore, that we are entitled to have the assurance of the Minister that he has gone into this matter very carefully and that he has legal authority behind him for stating that this Amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. Bevan: A Minister does not speak at this Box on these matters unless he is reasonably assured that what he is saying is correct. Must I always say that I have consulted a lawyer before I make a statement? It is an unreasonable question, and I do not understand the purpose of the intervention.

Mr. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I am afraid that he deliberately makes me explain further. This is a very complicated legal Bill, and we have not the advantage of one of the Law Officers sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I did not want to complain on that point, but when the Minister answers me in such a fashion as he has done, I am bound to stand up for my position. This Amendment has not been raised by our side; it has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters, and it seems to be only common courtesy that when I think that he is right I should get up and say so. If he does not like my doing that I might adopt a different attitude next time.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
so however that the said period shall not exceed six months from the date of the reference to the tribunal.
After the long wanderings in the jungle of the law, we now come to a fairly

straight-forward and simple point. Our discussion of this Bill has raised my admiration for His Majesty's Judges very much. I hope that it will be possible for us to reach agreement on this simple issue. We have now passed out of the stratum of great landlords and property owners altogether, and we are on the stratum of comparatively humble people with lodgings or lettings of one kind or another. The Minister has indicated that he fully appreciates this point. In these circumstances, I am sure that the Committee will agree that the burden of hardship is likely to be as much on the side of the person who is providing the rooms as on the side of the person who enjoys the rooms. What the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that if the period is extendable it should not be extendable beyond a total period of six months.
The Minister has spoken on this matter twice. He spoke on it on Second Reading and he spoke eloquently just now on the previous Amendment of the danger of tying people together as militating against anyone taking the risk of letting someone share accommodation. The Minister will be familiar with the play of Mr. Bernard Shaw called "Getting Married." In that play, two people decide to get married, but after reading the marriage service and realising the obligations which it would put upon them they find that it is not a thing which they can undertake at all. I myself have provided some house property for people to live in. I must say that if I had read the Statutes which govern these things, I, like the two people in "Getting Married," would have come to the conclusion that it would be better to turn the thing down and avoid the risks which are apparently inseparable from such an undertaking.
Surely six months is a long enough period. This is a problem of human relations. The right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will know the difficulties of even binding people to employment, and the haste with which Parliament seeks to remove that bond at the earliest possible moment. This is a much more intimate bond which is being inflicted upon people. Someone with only a separate bedroom who has a right to share the table of the person with whom he is living, might find under the present provisions of the Bill his rights indefinitely extended. Is that going


to favour the provision of accommodation or militate against it? I think that it will militate against it.
The Minister spoke of the possibility of women quarrelling with each other. He will remember the eloquent lines of Kipling:
Two women in one house,
Two cats and one mouse;
Two dogs and one bone,
Which I will leave alone.
This he is not going to leave alone. He is going to give the tribunal power by force of law to yoke these people together indefinitely. I say that in these circumstances I think the Minister is taking a risk which he himself has looked at before and quite properly refused to undertake. He says that instances of vindictiveness have come to his notice. We cannot legislate against human nature. To make an indefinite period of sharing a thing as close and personal as the house in which one is living, is for the legislature to press the powers of the House further than they should reasonably go. I do not wish to press the matter and delay the Committee, because the Amendment is clear and simple. We think that the present position will be fully met by a possible six months' extension, and that the indefinite extension contemplated in the Statute goes far beyond what is reasonably desirable.

Mr. Bevan: If the conditions described by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) followed from the application of the Bill in its present form, then I should certainly accept what he says. I imagine that it will work quite differently. If the application to the tribunal was in respect of families sharing accommodation with each other, and they were quarrelling and on bad terms, I doubt whether under such conditions the tribunal would perpetuate the security of tenure and keep them together. In fact, the tribunal would take into account the antipathy existing between the two families as a reason for wanting a separation, and the law would give as much notice as possible for other accommodation to be found. If I accepted the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, it would go far from providing what he himself wishes to obtain.
There is a lot of accommodation which is not necessarily shared accommodation. In fact, I suppose that in some parts of our cities the vast majority would be accommodation where the landlord is not himself or herself in close personal relationship with the aggrieved tenant, but where they have acted maliciously because the tenant has asked for the arbitrament of the tribunal. In such a case there is hardly any reason why security of tenure should not be given.
This is essentially a matter so much of looking at the immediate facts of the case, that we can safely leave it to the tribunal. Where the juxtaposition between the aggrieved parties is a personal one, then separation at the earliest possible convenient time is the only answer. Where the juxtaposition is not personal but merely legal, the landlord ought not to be given the power to destroy the security of tenure of the tenant merely because the tenant has taken him to the tribunal and has got a decision. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, on reflection, that the solution that we have arrived at would meet the varying conditions.

Mr. Hare: I do not think that the Minister has convinced the Committee with his argument. He is giving the same rights of security of tenure to furnished tenants as already exist for statutory tenants. That cannot be his intention. It cannot be right or fair that such an arangement should be made possible by the Bill. The Minister has stressed the danger of domestic strife as he called it, and of unhappiness within a household. He showed himself supremely human. He also stressed the fact that this was not a Bill to give security of tenure. He made that clear in the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). If that is so, I cannot see how he can logically bring in something which is quite new, which is to give furnished tenants, if the tribunal decides to extend the period of grace to a further three months, the same rights as at present exist for ordinary statutory tenants.

Mr. Bevan: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there is a fundamental difference between the case where two aggrieved parties are in close relationship with each other, and the case where they


are not? There is no reason at all, on the grounds advanced by the hon. Member, to permit a landlord who is not in direct personal relationship with the tenant who has taken him to the tribunal to get rid of the tenant. That is merely acting on vindictiveness. The tribunal can decide where the relationship is personal, to end it and not to give security of tenure.

Mr. Hare: The Minister is trying to convince me I think from what he has just said that it is fair that there should be a reasonable period in order to give security of tenure to the tenant of unfurnished accommodation but in the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is introducing an element of security of tenure for the tenant of furnished accommodation, which is quite new and is not in any way desirable.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman is approaching this rather difficult problem from the wrong end. He has put forward a case and his words were, as near as I can remember them, that the tenant ought not to have his security taken away. The Act of 1946 was not intended to give security of tenure. The three-months period was to protect the tenant who was in dispute with his landlord over rent. The basic principle of the 1946 Act was to see that only fair rents should be charged, and the purpose in regard to security of tenure was ancillary. The proper way to approach this question is not by the Amendment, in which one is taking away security of tenure from the tenant. The proper question is: "Are you not taking away from the landlord a right of possession of his own property?" We are not dealing here with wealthy landlords of landed estates but with furnished lettings and people who are very often in a very small way indeed and are often in close juxtaposition through having only one small room.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member refers to the letting of one room in the house. He does not address himself to my argument. These tribunals are composed of experienced people. Does the hon. and learned Member think they will go on giving an additional three months to tie two families together who are living in the same room? The hon.

and learned Member must think they are cretins.

Mr. Marlowe: The tenant may be living in one room. I did not mean that the people were all living in one room. I was talking of the case where the tenant is the occupier of one room. It is a case which often arises before rent tribunals every day of the week. The right hon. Gentleman's interruption was unjustified.

Mr. Bevan: I spoke of the two parties being in close personal relationship with each other—in other words, under the same roof, passing each other many times a day. In the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind of a person living in a small room in a small house, the parties would have every opportunity of quarrelling with each other. Those are circumstances which would naturally appeal to the tribunal in determining whether to give an additional three months. Is not that case wholly different from the other circumstance where the two families are not in personal relationship? I hope we are not going to spend so much time over small points as we are now doing, because we shall be an awfully long time before we get to the end.

Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman anticipated the case which I was going to make. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to cast upon the tribunals not only a duty which was not cast upon them by the 1946 Act, but an entirely novel duty. He is asking these tribunals to go beyond the original function, which was (a) to see that the tenant had a fair rent and (b) to give the tenant security of tenure. He is saying, regardless of what any Statute has said, that part of the function of the tribunal is to decide whether people are living happily together or not. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman sighing. I can quite understand his sighing. I can understand anybody who is required to discharge that duty sighing very heavily. The right hon. Gentleman is going to make these tribunals into courts of morals.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes. I always know when the right hon. Gentleman turns his back that he knows that an argument is too much for him.
Let me develop my argument. Let me put before the Committee instances of a


kind which anybody who has practised in the Divorce Court will have come across frequently. It is the case where the lodger has disturbed the matrimonial peace. Suppose you have a case where a man and his wife are living in a house, and they rent a room to a lodger. An affection springs up between the lodger and the wife. I am putting forward a serious case where there are two possibilities. One is that there is an affection between the lodger and the wife and the other is that, perhaps quite wrongly, the husband imagines there is. Suppose that case comes before the tribunal. It will come before the tribunal when application is made to the tribunal, and in those circumstances the tribunal has to decide the merits of the case as between the husband and wife. The husband may wish to get rid of the lodger and the wife may wish to retain him.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) were a member of the tribunal, how would he decide that case?

Mr. Marlowe: I can give the right hon. Gentleman two answers. The first is that his remark strongly supports our contention that lawyers should be on the tribunal and the second is that his question reinforces my argument that this imposes on the tribunal an impossible task. My point is that this imposes a task which the 1946 Act never presupposed. We have put forward a reasoned case why security of tenure should not be given for too long, that is to say, that a compulsory relationship between the people should not last indefinitely but have a limit—we suggested six months. The only

answer the right hon. Gentleman has given is that the tribunal will decide it. Our reply to that is that it is an impossible task for the tribunal.

Colonel Dower: I do not intend to go into details of domestic bliss and other arguments which have been put forward, but wish to tackle the Minister on the more difficult side of this matter. I want the Minister seriously to consider that, even in a case where people do not live together, there may be a temptation to make vexatious appeals to the tribunal. If an extension of three months is given, that may go on indefinitely.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Colonel Dower: I am glad to be put right by the Minister but I want him to avoid vexatious appeals being made by people who would not otherwise overburden the tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: We are making exceedingly heavy weather of a very simple point. The tribunal will have the two parties before them and all these matters will be discussed. These are really matters of common sense. They will not involve matters of fundamental principles of jurisprudence but matters which any ordinary men and women can decide among themselves. If the appeal is vexatious, the tribunal will not give an additional period. I think the time is ripe for us to get on to very much more important matters.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 276.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
(8.27 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D, C. (Wells)
Gage, C.
Low, A. R. W


Bower, N.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J.
Gammans, L. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McFarlane, C. S


Bullock, Capt. M.
Glyn, Sir R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R


Butcher, H. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Challen, C
Grimston, R. V.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. R.S.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Conant, Maj R. J. E
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A V
Manningham-Bullar, R. E


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Marlowe, A. A. H


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, J. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Mellor, Sir J.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin gh, W.)
Molson, A H. E


Digby, S. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Jarvis, Sir J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E


Dower, Col, A. V. G. (Penrith)
Jennings, R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Drayson, G B
Keeling, E. H.
Osborne, C.


Drewe, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Eccles, D M
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.




Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Scott, Lord W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N.



Smithers, Sir W.
Walker-Smith, D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spearman, A. C. M.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Mr. Studholme and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foot, M. M
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Albu, A. H.
Forman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Alpass, J. H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McLeavy, F.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Ganley, Mrs C. S
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Attewell, H. C.
Gibbins, J
Mainwaring, W H.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)


Ayles, W. H.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J P. W (Huddersfield)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs J


Bacon, Miss A.
Grey, C. F
Manning, Mrs L (Epping)


Baird, J.
Grierson, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Balfour, A
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H M


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J


Barton, C.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Messer, F


Battley, J. R.
Gunter, R J.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Bechervaise, A. E.
Guy W. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Benson, G
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Beswick, F.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil
Moody, A S


Bing, G. H C.
Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R
Morgan, Dr H B.


Binns, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morley, R


Blackburn, A. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Lt.-Col H. (Sheffield, C.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)


Boardman, H.
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Mort, D L.


Bowden, Flg Offr. H. W.
Haworth, J
Moyle, A.


Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Henderson, Rt Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Murray, J D.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Naylor, T. E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hicks, G.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hobson, C R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holman, P
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)


Burden, T. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H


Burke, W. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Paget, R T


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hoy, J.
Paling, Rt Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Byers, Frank
Hubbard, T.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Palmer, A. M. F


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Chater, D.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R
Hynd J B. (Attercliffe)
Patton, J. (Norwich)


Cobb, F. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pearson, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Irvine W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Coldrick, W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole Cecil (Lichfield)


Collick, P.
Jannner, B.
Popplewell, E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Price, M Philips


Crawley, A.
Johnston, Douglas
Proctor, W T


Cullen, Miss
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Pryde, D. J.


Daggar, G.
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)




Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kenyon, C
Ranger, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, R.J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B V
Reeves, J


Davies S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Deer G.
Lang, G
Rhodes, H.


Diamond, J
Lavers, S
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Dodds, N. N
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy Miss J (Cannock)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dumpleton, C W.
Levy, B W.
Royle, C.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A W J. (Upton)
Scollan, T


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lewis, J (Bolton)
Scott-Elliot, W


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Sharp, Granville


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Logan, D. G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Longden, F
Shinwell, Rt Hon. E


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lyne, A. W
Shurmer, P


Ewart, R.
McAdam, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Fairhurst, F.
McAllister, G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Farthing, W J.
McEntee, V La T.
Simmons, C J


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McGovern, J.
Skinnard, F. W


Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)







Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Timmons, J
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Snow, J. W
Titterington, M. F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Sorensen, R. W.
Tolley, L.
Wigg, George


Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir Frank
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Sparks, J. A
Turner-Samuels, M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Stamford, W
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Steele, T.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stross, Dr B.
Walker, G. H.
Willis, E.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Swingler, S
Warbey, W N.
Woods, G. S.


Sylvester, G O.
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Symonds, A. L.
Watson, W. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Weitzman, D.
Zilliacus, K.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)



Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
West, D. G.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Wiltons.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)



Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, to leave out "under this Section," and to insert:
being made under this Section—
(a) the notice to quit to which the application relates shall not, unless the application is withdrawn, have effect before the determination of the application;
(b).
This is the Amendment to which I made reference some little while ago, and there are three consequential Amendments to it. It seeks to provide that the applicant to a tribunal shall not lose his tenancy because it will have expired before the tribunal has arbitrated. It in-tends to preserve the security for seven days at the very least after the tribunal has reached a decision.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 31, leave out "to which the application relates."

In line 34, at the end, insert:
(c) if the Tribunal refuse a direction under this Section, the notice to quit shall not have effect before the expiration of seven days from the determination of the application.

In line 37, leave out subsection (4), and insert:
(4) Where on an application under this Section the tribunal have refused a direction under subsection (2) thereof, no subsequent application under this Section shall be made in relation to the same notice to quit."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(5) This section shall not apply in any case in which the circumstances set out in the First Schedule to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, apply.
This is quite a short point, namely, to exempt from the extra protection afforded by this Clause to the tenant of furnished

accommodation where the rent has been referred to a tribunal, cases where an order for possession without proof of alternative accommodation could be made under the principal Acts against the tenant of unfurnished accommodation; that is to say, where the tenant has defaulted, or where the landlord would have the right of entry under the 1933 Act, for instance, for the use of an employee.

Mr. Bevan: We think this ought to be left to the good sense of the tribunal. If we accepted the Amendment, it would only lead to uncertainty as to what lay within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and we would prefer that ambiguity not to exist.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is an old discussion. I do not wish to divide the Committee on this point, because we have made our case frequently that the tribunal is entitled to some direction from the House, and we think so here. There are, however, important issues at which we wish to arrive and we are, therefore, willing to let the Amendment be negatived but I do not withdraw it.

Mr. J. Foster: Is it proposed that the Ministry of Health should give any indication to the tribunals as to what circumstances they can take into account? I have been told that there has been so much uncertainty about this that the tribunal at Marylebone has issued a book stating which circumstances they take into account. Would it help if someone specified those?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I desire to put to the Minister a point which I should have put to him on an earlier Amendment. I did not do so then because I thought the atmosphere was, perhaps, a little too hilarious for it to be taken as seriously as I should desire. I have been impressed in the Debates on the various Amendments to the Clause by the fact that there is a fairly general comprehension, I think, on both sides of the Committee of what the purpose of the Clause is, and a wide measure of agreement on the kind of object which is required to be effected; but I retain myself a certain amount of genuine doubt as to whether there would not have been a simpler and better way of achieving this object.
May I recall the Committee for a moment to the history of the matter? We are all agreed that the tribunal determines the reasonable rent of furnished lettings and we are all agreed that, because of the fact that it may reduce the rent, it is necessary to give the tribunal power to prevent its decision being flouted by a landlord terminating a furnished tenancy, which he could otherwise do, and thereby getting rid of a tenant in revenge for his applying to the tribunal.
Under the 1946 Act, as we know, the tribunal has authority to give protection up to three months. For various reasons, that was found to be unsatisfactory because, in the present housing shortage, three months is not a very long time. In practice, the Minister had to resort to what I think he would agree was the somewhat questionable device of supplementing the powers of the tribunal by requisitioning the premises if it was thought that the landlord was taking advantage of the shortness of the period in order to get the tenant out unreasonably immediately after the expiration of three months. He now seeks to get from Parliament, and, on the whole, he has been conceded, the view that a wider measure of protection ought to be afforded by law than the three months which was given by the Act to the tribunal. He has accordingly provided that the tenant may apply from three months to three months in suitable cases to have that protection extended indefinitely.
I think we would all agree that that may give rise to difficulties, especially

as we have to remember throughout that the tenant has absolutely no deterrent at all against making frivolous applications to tribunals. He can put the landlord to a great deal of embarrassment and fear, even in cases where there is no reasonable case, by going to tribunals for a determination of the rent. He has a clear prospect of success if he does so and nothing whatever to fear if he fails. On the assumption that he succeeds in getting a small reduction in rent, it is, of course, possible for him to be afforded—and he may be afforded, even in such a case—reasonable security of tenure. The question is whether it ought to be open for him or be left simply to the tribunal to go on from three months to three months renewing that security.
I am not altogether satisfied that that is reasonable and for this reason: the Minister very properly observed in an earlier Amendment—proposed, I think, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks)—that we are not in this Clause discussing the proper security which ought to be given to tenants of furnished lettings in general. That is not our question and the Minister, quite rightly, said that this is not a Clause for effecting such a purpose. It would, therefore, not be proper to look to this Clause to give to a tenant a greater security than he would have had if he had not applied to the tribunal at all. That, I think, will be common ground between all those who have studied this matter. I am driven to wonder whether the effect of the Clause at present may not be in practice to give such a protection in such cases for an indefinite period.
8.45 p.m.
I should not have raised this point had I not been of the opinion that there is both an easier and a better way of securing the objective, and that is by taking the question of security of tenure out of the jurisdiction of the tribunal altogether and placing it within the jurisdiction of the county court, as under the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Committee will be aware that under those Acts the county court can suspend the operation of a possession order for any period for which it thinks reasonable. I cannot help thinking that that is what should have been done here once it was established, as I think it has been established, that the three months' arbitrary maximum supplied by the old Act was not adequate,


and that the real procedure should be to leave the landlord in such a case to seek his remedy in the county court, as he would have to do, and to provide that the county court judge, where an application had been made to the tribunal, should not make an order for possession unless he thought it reasonable and upon such terms as he considered reasonable. That would give a greater degree of security and finality to the matter. It would protect the tenant and the landlord and would avoid the rather extraordinary situations which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested.
I do not want the Minister to give a considered reply to this matter now, because I should have given him notice that I was going to raise this point, but I hope he will bear it in mind as a suggestion which is not unfriendly to the principle of the Clause and that he will consider it before the matter reaches another stage.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to add:
and every such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
The Clause provides that
Any power to make regulations or an order conferred on the Minister by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that such statutory instruments shall be subject to annulment by Parliament. This is a reasonable proposal. It is quite probable that the Minister will pray in aid the fact that in the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, there was no provision for orders and regulations to be subject to annulment, but it is desirable, especially as this is a much wider Measure, that any orders and regulations made by the Minister, which must be made by statutory instrument, should not only be subject to the provisions regarding publication of the Statutory Instruments Act, but also should have to be laid

before Parliament and be subject to review and annulment if disapproved. That should be the normal course when an Act of Parliament makes provision for a Minister to issue regulations and orders under it.
If the Minister has any special reason against that course, then the onus should be upon him to show that there is no occasion for Parliament to review his orders and regulations or to have the opportunity of annulling them. I think that prima face it is the right of the House of Commons to have the Minister's orders and regulations laid before it and that the right should be available to hon. Members to move Prayers against them if they consider that course desirable.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member has pointed out, what we are doing here is merely to follow the procedure laid down in what is the principal Act for the purpose of this Clause of the Bill, that is the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. As we have already covered 83 per cent, of the population by these regulations and orders, it does not seem reasonable that we should alter the whole procedure for the remaining 17 per cent., especially as they will be in areas of scattered populations where probably we would have to join a number of districts together, or attach districts to existing tribunals. Although, generally speaking, I would agree with the hon. Member, it does not seem to me that in this case there is a special point in making the proposed alteration.

Sir J. Mellor: I wish to point out that this is not only a question of making orders in regard to areas, but of particulars described under Clause 4, particulars in regard to terms and conditions of tenancy which have to be registered by the local authority. That is the kind of point which the House of Commons should have an opportunity of considering. I would also point out that under this Bill the principal Act is not the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, but the principal Acts are the whole series of Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. Bevan: It is for the purposes of the Act of 1946 that these tribunals are set up.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the very great difference between what we


are doing here and the Act of 1946 and that the right hon. Gentleman has actually admitted that he would like to see such matters generally coming before the House, although he does not want that in this case, would it not be wise to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage? If he will give an assurance of that kind, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will give an assurance that he will look at the question of whether he has to worry about 17 per cent, of the population when we have already swallowed 83 per cent., I will certainly look at it again, but we do not want to clutter up the Business of the House unnecessarily. This has worked well so far and I have not heard the slightest objection to it. I think this the simplest procedure and in no way are the rights of the House overridden. Regulation-making power of this sort is quite common in such matters and it is not usual to bring such matters in detail before the House. I will certainly have a look at it to see whether it is desirable, but I hope I shall not be taken as having given any promise.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to look at it seriously in view of what has been said and, in those circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman promises to look at the matter. It will in no way add to the trouble involved, because, in any case, these instruments have to be printed and published. It only means their being formally laid and subject to annulment by Prayer, if any hon. Member thinks fit to move a Prayer during the first 40 days after they are laid. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

CLAUSE 13.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, in page 10,

line 29, to leave out "relevant part of the letting," and to insert "rental equivalent."
This, and the five following Amendments, are designed to bring Clause 13 into line with Clause 2, as amended. Hon. Members will remember that as a result of the Amendments to Clause 2, provision is made to ensure that the rental equivalent will be deducted when there is a new letting to a new tenant.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in line 31, to leave out from "expression," to the first "the," in line 32, and to insert:
'rental equivalent' means the amount of the premium, or of so much thereof as at the time of the tribunal's determination has not been repaid or recovered divided by the number of rent-periods between.

Commander Galbraith: The words seem a little difficult to understand. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a little further explanation of exactly what they mean?

The Lord Advocate: If the words are read in conjunction with the Clause as originally drafted, and if one has in view the terms of the Amendments to Clause 2, I do not think any of the hon. Members who understood the Amendments to Clause 2 will have any difficulty in understanding these Amendments. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) was not present when the Amendments to Clause 2 were discussed.

Commander Galbraith: That was a long time ago.

The Lord Advocate: It may seem a long time ago, but it was not really a long time ago. I do not want to weary the Committee in going over the effect of these Amendments, as it was fully explained in relation to Clause 2. The effect of the Scottish application Clause is to spread the rental equivalent over the period of that part of seven years as is apposite to the particular case. While I agree that in reading these Amendments in the abstract it may be difficult to understand them, if they are fitted into the context, they are perfectly comprehensible.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: In line 34, leave out "ending," and insert:
the following date (in this Section referred to as the 'relevant date') that is to say.

In line 37, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."

In line 39, leave out "with," and insert "the date of."

In page 11, line 4, leave out "(5) and (6)," and insert "(4) and (5)."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir William Darling: It will be observed that this Clause is described as Clause 13, an unlucky number, and I think an unhappy circumstance. This Clause is arranged to apply this Bill to Scotland and is a matter of considerable regret. There is a growing feeling in the House of Commons and in the country that the attachment of Clauses which have a special application to Scotland, to English Bills may be a matter of administrative convenience but is not always desirable from many points of view.
I notice, for example, that under Clause 12 the power to make regulations is given to the Minister of Health in England and Wales and the same power is given to the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. I am among those who would have debated whether it is desirable to give the same extensive and wide powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland as, to the right hon. Gentleman in England. That is a point on which a division of opinion might have been permitted. Again, in Clause 4 the local authority is responsible for providing the rates but in Scotland the tribunal is charged with that duty.
There must be come explanation, some justification, of this variation. I was struck by the Minister's observation a few minutes ago that 83 per cent, of the people of this country were already covered, and that being so we need not worry about the other 17 per cent. It is that which brings me to my feet. The population of these islands is about 50 million, of whom some five million are in Scotland. If the Minister does not intend to worry about 17 per cent. of his own countrymen, I would direct

his attention to the fact that five million people in Scotland, some 10 per cent, of the total, will want to know the reason why. Coming, as the right hon. Gentleman does, from a small, vital country, I am certain that had circumstances been different he would have put forward with even greater vigour than I can command the view that I am putting forward.
9.0 p.m.
If there is to be a separate legislative system in Scotland, a separate method of conducting our affairs, habits of thought and action in this important domestic matter of the relations of landlord and tenant, then in spite of the urgency of the time factor, it would have been more courteous and respectful to Scottish public opinion if we had had a separate Bill which would have met the views of Scottish public opinion, even if the Government had had their way. The attempt to attach Scotland to England in this way is offensive to an ancient country and is not necessary. I am sure that in saying that I command a good deal of sympathy on the part of people of other nationalities.
The terms of reference of this Bill cover houses of three kinds, those the rateable value of which does not exceed £100 in London, £75 in England and Wales, and £90 in Scotland. That is a wide variation, and yet here we have Clause 13, by which Scotland is made to cling most reluctantly to the tail of England. When one looks at the Schedule one sees that of the three minor Amendments it contains two deal with Scotland. Scotland is tacked on to an English Bill by Clause 13, and yet the major alterations of law—two-thirds of the minor Amendments effected by the Schedule—relate to Scotland. I do not think it is fair to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is an urbane, tolerant, accommodating Minister, or to the Lord Advocate.
It is a suggestion, in my view, that these distinguished Members of the Government are not able to conduct a Bill of their own. I should be the first to challenge that assertion if anyone made it. It is unfair to take up the time of English Members with what are Scottish matters of a difficult and specialised character. Therefore, I suggest that Clause 13 should be agreed to only on the very strict understanding that on


future occasions legislation affecting Scotland should not be effected by a Clause of this character in what is a purely English Measure.

The Lord Advocate: I find it difficult to understand the righteous indignation of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). He apparently feels that it is entirely out of place that legislation affecting Scotland should be incorporated in a Clause at the end of a Bill which is primarily concerned with England. I understand that to be the tenor of the hon. Member's argument. I could have understood that argument if it had stood in isolation, but I find it difficult to reconcile with a Bill which I have before me. It is a Private Member's Bill which affects the United Kingdom. It has a long Scottish application Clause, and I find that the first supporter of the Bill is the hon. Member for South Edinburgh.

Sir W. Darling: Inconsistency is not the monopoly of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Lord Advocate: I think we can
agree to be inconsistent. But before the hon. Gentleman makes attacks of this nature, he should see matters in a proper perspective. He will remember that we had rent tribunals in Scotland for three years before England had them. It has taken England three years to come abreast of us. Now that they have done so, and we feel it desirable that we should move ahead, we have no objection to England coming along with us. It shows a progressive spirit in England which we are all delighted to see. I am sure that if the hon. Member appreciates the missionary spirit which has characterised the Scots throughout the centuries he will realise why we are doing this.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND EXTENT.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 39, at end, insert:
'premium' includes any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, at the end, to insert:
(3) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty and no longer.
A few moments ago the right hon, Gentleman appealed to the principal Act and suggested to the Committee that we should stick as closely as possible to the principal Act. That is what I am suggesting we should do in this Amendment. The Committee will remember that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, was originally to end by 31st December, 1947, and has since been extended to 31st December, 1950. Here we have the principal Act extended until 31st December, 1950. We have tribunals dealing with matters of furnished lettings and the matters in this present Bill, and we suggest it is only reasonable that the limitation of time should be the same in each case. For that reason we have put down this Amendment.
Further than that, is there not something wrong in having this a permanent Act? Does it not suggest that the situation which we are trying to meet at the present moment is to be permanent? Are there not to be some limits to the operation of this particular Bill, instead of putting it on the Statute Book as a permanent Measure? Surely by doing that we are suggesting to the people of the country that the housing shortage will remain permanent, and that is something we do not expect, or at least we hope will not happen. Indeed, according to—what shall I call them—all the things we are led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman himself in regard to housing, we should anticipate that by the end of December, 1950, the position may well be changed to such an extent under his guidance that the housing shortage will almost have disappeared. In those circumstances, I feel that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it is a reasonable Amendment and will, no doubt, be prepared to accept it.

Mr. Bevan: The Amendment which has been moved could, of course, be accepted without any very great danger. Nevertheless, I see no purpose in doing so, because the Ridley Committee itself, I believe with complete unanimity, said that rent control would have to last for at least ten years after the war. If we accept this


Amendment, we would have to continue it under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, should it prove necessary. I see no reason why we should attach so much legislation to that Act.
Furthermore, in some of the great cities it will be some time before we can dispense with protective legislation of this sort, not merely because of the absence of accommodation, but because we shall be going into slum clearance, and it will still be necessary to protect certain tenants, because slum clearance, until it is completed, will always bring about a certain shortage of accommodation. That is always a problem in these great cities when re-development is started, because it is necessary to destroy accommodation in order to provide sites for the building of modern homes in place of the slums. Certain restrictions on accommodation will be necessary for some time to come as a result of the general housing operations. I suggest, therefore, that in the circumstances it is not wise to insert December, 1950, in this matter.
I was, of course, rather optimistic originally because I had accepted certain figures from the previous Government. As I said before, I was led to believe—not with much credulity, I was sceptical about the figure—and so was the country, that if we provided 750,000 additional homes we would meet the gross need for accommodation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Houses."] No, 750,000 additional homes. Hon. Members must get the facts right. I should be out of Order in explaining this at any length; I refer to it only because the hon. and gallant Member himself made reference to it. They were not houses; they were homes, because some way had to be found of distinguishing flats. They also computed in that estimate re-occupied war-damaged houses. Now that we have lifted the standards of the population, now that there is full employment and people are more prosperous than they were, and now that the two million unemployed before the war are in employment and wanting homes, we find that our success has exposed a larger problem than hon. Members thought existed. I do not want to add anything further to what has been said. I notice the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is restless in his seat.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I had no intention of interrupting the Minister, but as he seems to wish it, let me ask him this. Does he suggest that there are more people in employment now than when he made this prophecy about 1947 seeing the end of the stringency in the housing position?

Mr. Bevan: I am speaking of the prophecy of which I was the victim. I am speaking of the prophecy which we inherited. We are now seeking, by asking local authorities to sift their lists, to find a more realistic picture of the housing need disclosed by the fact that what was before the war a need has now become an electoral demand.
For the various reasons I have given, I suggest that these tribunals will be useful for some time to come. Indeed, they are providing us with very good experience, because suppose, subsequently, we want to apply the Ridley Committee's recommendations, suppose we reach the time when there is roughly a free market in housing, when there is a more reasonable relationship between supply and demand: we might then want to use these tribunals, or something like them, or something they will grow into, in order to charge them—I am not, and. I cannot, argue the merits of the case now—with the task of carrying out the major rent control Act when it is put upon the Statute Book. I suggest that it would be unwise to put so short a limit on the life of these tribunals. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Ridley Committee considered that their Report could not be implemented until there was a free market in houses? When the Ridley Committee said they thought that rent control would have to continue for 10 years, they believed that there might not be a free market during that period.

Mr. Bevan: I said no such thing. The hon. Member ought not to try to impute those words to me. I was merely suggesting a number of possibilities, and I said that we might charge these tribunals with whatever functions we put into the major alteration when we make it. I am merely making this animadversion at the


moment in order to suggest that we ought not to put so short a period on to the lifetime of the tribunals.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister has utilised this Amendment ingeniously, from the point of view of the rules of Order to build up one of his famous "Tipperary alibis" of the past. I think there is a better reason for resisting the Amendment than the Minister has given. This Bill is in fact a piece of mosaic fitted into the structure of the Rent Restrictions Acts and into the Act of 1946 which, when it is passed, will become an integral part of that legislation. I do not think it is practicable, once that is achieved, to put a different term to the currency of this Bill than the term of the principal Acts to which it relates. I think the result would be chaotic from the legislative point of view, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.

Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid that I must pursue this point further. I understood the Minister to say that the Government would probably have to continue the Measure provided in this Bill perhaps for 10 years because there would not be until after that period a free market in houses. Surely the whole basis of the Ridley Report was that there should be early general legislation. This Measure, to put it at its highest, is a stopgap, a piecemeal Measure. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the report of the Ridley Committee and I think it is only fair that I should call the attention of the Committee to what they recommended. They said:
In our opinion it is urgently necessary that the present chaos of overlapping Statutes should be replaced by a single comprehensive Act ….
and further:
The evidence we have received convinces us that the difficulties and anomalies produced by the present system of control causes widespread and legitimate resentment, and we are satisfied that the time has come for a determined effort to remove them.
That report was over three years ago, and it seems to me perfectly fantastic for the right hon. Gentleman to pray in aid what the Ridley Committee said to justify his contention that it may be necessary

to continue in effect the provisions of this Bill for another 10 years. That seems perfectly fantastic. In the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, this point of duration has been dealt with under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on two occasions. Two years running it was put into that Bill, and now it is carried on to the beginning of 1950. That surely is the appropriate course to take with this Bill. I cannot see in the Ridley Report the slightest justification for the arguments of the Minister. I find everything in the Report directly opposite to them.

Mrs. Ridealgh: I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment. In Ilford we have about 25,000 people who are overcrowded and need re-housing. At the rate of re-housing in Ilford the most that can be given accommodation by the end of 1950 is about 3,000. I hope he will resist this Amendment so that the other 22,000 will have some protection.

Commander Galbraith: I have been very much disappointed in the Minister's last reply. He is being highly inconsistent. I think that when he advises the Committee to stick to the principal Acts on the previous Amendments, and then tells us to depart from them here, he is inconsistent to a degree. What is more, it shows a complete lack of faith in his own abilities. [Interruption.] Certainly he has shown great lack of faith in himself tonight, although on other occasions he always seems to have the proper amount. The point is, did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the country that before the General Election of 1950 he would have solved the housing problem? Did he not make that declaration? We are giving him six months longer than that, although of course for that six months he will not be in office. We are giving him longer than he asked for, yet he tells us that he cannot accept the Amendment. I am disappointed in him. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen very far in my estimation. In spite of that, I will accept the advice of my hon. Friends and on this occasion I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNMENT OF TENANCY.)

(1) A person shall not, as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy to which this Section applies, require the payment of any premium in addition to the rent.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a person shall not, as a condition of the assignment of a tenancy to which this Section applies, require the payment of any premium.

(3) This Section applies to any tenancy of a dwelling-house such that when the dwelling-house is let under the tenancy it is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply.

(4) Where before the commencement of this Act a premium has been lawfully required, and paid, in respect of the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy to which this Section applies, then notwithstanding anything in Subsection (2) of this Section on any assignment of the tenancy or an immediately succeeding tenancy a premium may be required of an amount not exceeding the amount which bears to the premium paid on the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy the same proportion as the period beginning with the date at which the assignment takes effect and ending with the relevant date bears to the period beginning with the said grant, continuance or renewal and ending with the relevant date.

(5) For the purposes of the last foregoing Subsection—

(a) a tenancy (in this paragraph referred to as "the later tenancy") shall be treated as immediately succeeding another tenancy (in this paragraph referred to as "the earlier tenancy") if, and only if, the dwelling-house has been let under a tenancy or tenancies to which this Section applies throughout the period between the beginning of the earlier tenancy and the beginning of the later tenancy, and at no time during that period has the landlord granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began;
(b) the relevant date is the date which would be the relevant date for the purposes of Section two of this Act if the application to the Tribunal therein referred to had been made at the date when the assignment mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection takes effect, so, however, that if on such an application the Tribunal have under paragraph (a) of Subsection (4) of the said Section two determined a later date, the relevant date is the date so determined.

(6) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (2) of this Section, an assignor may, if it is so agreed, require the payment by the assignee—

(a) of so much of any outgoings discharged by the assignor as is referrable to any period after the assignment takes effect;
(b) of a sum not exceeding the amount of any expenditure reasonably incurred by the assignor in carrying out any structural alteration of the dwelling-house; or

(c) where the assignor became a tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of an assignment of the tenancy thereof, of a sum not exceeding any reasonable amount paid by him to his assignor in respect of expenditure incurred by that assignor, or by any previous assignor of the tenancy, in carrying out any such alteration as aforesaid.

(7) Where, under an agreement made after the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, any premium has been paid which, or the whole of which, could not lawfully be required under the foregoing provisions of this Section (or, if the premium was required before the commencement of this Act, which could not lawfully have been required if this Act had then been in force), the amount of the premium, or so much thereof as could not lawfully be required or have been required, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was paid:

Provided that where the premium was paid under an agreement made since the said twenty-fifth day of March and before the commencement of this Act, and the premium could lawfully be required under the enactments hereby repealed, the agreement shall without prejudice to the operation of this Section, be voidable at the option of either party thereto.

(8) A person requiring any premium in contravention of this Section shall be liable ore summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount of the premium, or so much thereof as cannot lawfully be required under this Section, to be-repaid to the person by whom it was paid.

(9) Section eight of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, is hereby repealed; but, without prejudice to the operation of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, nothing in this Section shall be construed as affecting the operation of the said Section eight as respects anything done before the commencement of this Act.

(10) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Section shall render any amount recoverable more than, once.—[Mr. Bevan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause, like many of the Clauses in this Bill, is not very easy to understand at first reading. Nevertheless, I think I may be able to put the Committee in possession of the intention of the Clause in a very few words. It was pressed upon me in the Second Reading Debate that the time had come, and that indeed it would be consistent with the other parts of the Bill, to abolish all premiums on the assignment of a rent-controlled house. This Clause is the fulfilment of a pledge I gave on that occasion. It abolishes all premiums, those which were legal and, if I may use an


Irishism, those which were illegal. It abolishes the illegal premium for a second time, if I may use that phrase; it makes it final that in future it will not be possible for people to charge on assignment of rent-controlled houses.
There is, of course, one qualification. It will not be possible for a landlord to charge on assignment to a statutory tenant, but it might easily happen that a contractual tenant will have secured under the terms of this Bill a rental equivalent of reduced rent in respect of a premium which had been paid. It will be possible, therefore, for that tenant, if he becomes an assignor, to charge a person acquiring the tenancy from him a premium to the remaining value of the reduced rental equivalent. That will be the only circumstance in which it will be possible for a premium to be charged and, of course, it will be an extinguishing category, because it cannot apply after the Bill has become an Act, because from that point onwards no further premiums can be charged.
It may be said that there is one injustice done, because in the event of a premium having been paid to a tenant and the tenant having disappeared, it would not be possible for a person having paid the premium to pass it to anybody at all, but it is not practicable in these circumstances, where we are intervening in a series of running contracts, to prevent some sort of hardship falling upon somebody or other.
I considered the possibility of giving a right of action on the part of those who had paid premiums to tenants who had disappeared, but I came to the conclusion that the onus of proof would be much too difficult and that the persons who had paid the premium would at least have this relief—if they wanted a new tenancy or moved from where they were at the moment to somewhere else, they would be protected from having to pay a premium for new accommodation. That is about all one can do for that category of persons.
Once we intervene in a running chain of contracts of this sort it is absolutely impossible to do other than that. Indeed, it certainly would be a Gilbertian situation to try to relieve the hardship of those who have paid a premium by

giving them the right to pass the hardship on to somebody else. The hardship must stop at some point or another. It seems to me that we have taken all the practicable steps that can be taken to end this mischief. Of course, as hon. Members know, it always was illegal to charge key money.

Mr. Hogg: For a landlord.

Mr. Bevan: For a landlord to charge key money. This new Clause merely makes it equally impossible for a tenant to charge key money. I have not been able to resist the contention that what was true of a landlord should also be true of a tenant, because the tenant is able to give only what the landlord gives, that is, occupancy, and he has no more right to charge a person a premium for that value than the landlord himself. Therefore, it seems to me, in all the circumstances, that the time has come to put an end to this mischief, which has caused a considerable amount of ill-feeling and much hardship, and has aroused a great deal of public indignation.

Mr. Hogg: I think it would be churlish on my part if I did not express my gratitude to the Minister for having taken to heart certain criticisms which I made on Second Reading of the Bill, which criticisms were, I think, echoed from all sides of the House. I think he certainly has done his best to deal with an admitted evil. I certainly did not realise at the time when I voiced those criticisms that what would come out would be anything quite so complicated as this particular new Clause. I think that was probably due to the fact that although one is always discovering about this subject that it is complicated, as one knows it to be, it is always a little more complicated than one thinks.
I wonder whether the Minister has really been right in giving so little sanction to the case where a premium, illegal under this Clause, has in fact been charged. I can see one argument against giving such a sanction. I think it is important to remember, where an illegal premium has been charged by a landlord on the tenant, or by a tenant on another tenant, that both the person who charges and the person who pays the premium are to blame. Language is sometimes used in this Committee which


lends force to the view that the landlord, or the person charging the premium, is to blame, and the person of whom it is charged is not to blame. I think it is important to rid oneself of that idea. The person who pays the premium is always jumping the queue of other people who need housing accommodation.
9.30 p.m.
It is vital, therefore, to realise that the person who pays the premium, although one may tend to look upon him as exploited, is himself morally to blame and not a person to be encouraged. I can see, therefore, the force of the argument that it would be a mistake to give to the person paying the premium the right of recovery of what had "been charged. The difficulty I find about that is that under the principal Acts a similar right of recovery is given as against the landlord in certain cases. I think that the arguments are nicely balanced as to whether that was a wise provision or not. What I am not happy about is the apparent anomaly of giving it under the principal Acts and not under this Bill. My difficulty is further increased by the fact that I am not altogether impressed by the two arguments which the Minister put forward. The first was that in certain cases the person charging the premium might have disappeared, with which I agree, and the second was that the difficulty of establishing an illegal payment, which was what I understood the Minister to mean by the phrase "onus of proof." might be too great.
I think that a course on those lines could be pursued in both cases. If the person charging the premium had disappeared then no action could be brought, but there must be many cases where such a man could be found and an action ought to be brought if for no other reason than that it is thought desirable to impose a penalty. Moreover, the difficulty of establishing the stated facts is never as a rule considered a good reason against giving the right of action to the person who actually succeeds in overcoming the difficulty. In many cases it would not be difficult to establish payment. In fact, I am constantly surprised at the way in which, in spite of elaborate precautions taken to conceal an illegality, it keeps on peeping out and can be established by legal methods of evidence more often than not.
I am not absolutely sure that where a tenant charges an illegal premium the right of recovery ought not to reside in the landlord. After all, it is he who has been exploited in this matter. The Act will have deprived him of what would have been his property. The tenant has proceeded to capitalise the value of what has been taken away from the landlord to his private advantage, and that we now can see is wrong. We also see, as I think the Minister agrees, that the person paying the premium may be equally to blame because he is the temporary owner, and where the tenant charges an illegal premium, one is driven to the conclusion that the landlord who has not charged it but who has been deprived of his property by the Act is the one person who ought to have the advantage.
I do not intend the criticism that I have offered of this new Clause to detract from the genuineness of the gratitude which I have already expressed to the Minister. I am not always prone to expect from the right hon. Gentleman an undue willingness to accept suggestions from this side of the Committee, and when he does so I think that it is right to give him encouragement to do so again.

Mr. Janner: This is a complicated matter, but I wonder whether between now and the Report stage, the Minister might not take the opportunity of reconsidering the position to see whether he can reduce his very long Clause to a much smaller space. I cannot see, for example, why it is necessary to have the last three lines in subsection (5, b) in view of the fact that there is already provision for extension to a later date in the original tenancy itself. Perhaps we shall have an explanation of that later on. I also think that the words of a later Clause which I hope to move might be utilised to some extent in reducing the verbiage of this new Clause. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee should be very grateful indeed to the Minister for having realised and put into the Bill the important provisions, with regard to the prevention of the imposition of premiums on assignment and I want to thank him, in view of the fact I had already a new Clause down on this matter, for accepting practically all that is in my new Clause, there only being in his new Clause certain embellishments which appeal to him.

Mr. J. Foster: Without intending any disrespect to the Minister of Health, may I say that I am glad to see the Solicitor-General on the Front Bench because there is one proviso which puzzles me very much and I should like him to explain what it means. Subsection (3) of the new Clause makes very difficult reading in conjunction with subsections (6) and (7) of Section 12 of the Act of 1920. The point is whether it applies, for instance, to houses which are let at two-thirds of the rateable value which are outside the principal Act.
It is confusing, because the subsection jumps from tenancy to dwelling-house and back again from dwelling-house to tenancy. The Minister will see that subsection (3) is in itself difficult to understand because it says:
(3) This Section applies to any tenancy of a dwelling-house such that when the dwelling-house is let under the tenancy it is a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply.
If that subsection stood alone it would rather mean that if one let a house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value the proposed new Clause would not apply to it because it is not a tenancy to which the principal Act would apply. In Subsection (6) of Section 12 of the principal Act we find:
Where this Act has become applicable to any dwelling-house … it shall continue to apply thereto whether or not the dwelling-house continues to be one to which this Act applies.
Then if we look at subsection (7), which is the one dealing with the two-thirds of the rateable value, we find:
Where the rent payable in respect of any tenancy of any dwelling-house is less than two thirds of the rateable value thereof, this Act shall not apply to that rent or tenancy … and this Act shall apply in respect of such dwelling-house if no such tenancy existed or never had existed.
That makes the position difficult to understand, because under subsection (7) it says that if one lets a house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value one can disregard that tenancy, but that one shall deem that the dwelling-house is within the Act. If we deem that the dwelling-house comes within the Act, under subsection (7) it must mean that if you let the house for two-thirds of the rent, although it is not a tenancy which would bring the house within the Act we must deem the dwelling-house to be within the Act. I find the matter very

confusing and I would like the Minister to explain how those three subsections go together.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure that the hon. Member has a point with which he is struggling. I would struggle with it myself if he could bring it out into the light. So far, I am not able to understand what the point is that he wishes to put to me. He must put me in possession of his problem if I am to attempt a solution.

Mr. Foster: The difficulty is that the thing is very involved.

Mr. Bevan: I agree.

Mr. Foster: As I see it, and putting into my own words, subsection (7) of Section 12 says that when you let a dwelling-house at less than two-thirds of the rateable value you can disregard that tenancy, but the dwelling-house comes within the province of the principal Act, although the tenancy does not. I think that follows, because it says that the Act shall apply with respect to such dwelling-house as though no such tenancy existed or had ever existed. When we turn to the new Clause we have to read in "not less than two-thirds of the rateable value." It says that the Section shall apply to any tenancy let at two-thirds of the rateable value, but only if the tenancy would be one which, if applied to a dwelling-house, would make it come within the principal Act. It looks as if it does. If that is so, it would attack the security of building societies and so on.

Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, this applies to a tenancy which is within the Act and not to a tenancy which is not within the Act, but if that be not the case, we will have another look at it. I will have a private conference with the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) in order to extricate all of us from the embarrassments which might occur.

Mr. Foster: Perhaps I might add a rider. If the Minister looks at the new Clause he will see that it applies to a dwelling-house. That is the difficulty. It is not only to a tenancy within the Act; it is to a tenancy which, if applied under the principal Act, would put the dwelling-house in.

Mr. Binns: I want to know what a premium is. I have not yet


heard a discussion about what a premium is. It appears that some landlords are in the habit of allowing a tenancy to be taken on the basis of substantial structural alterations or other works being done by the person who receives the tenancy. Many of us are afraid that it would be possible for landlords not to charge a premium in terms of money but to charge an equivalent in terms of the work which is to be performed by the tenant. It would be helpful if the Minister would elucidate that point.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: While I welcome the attempt which the Minister has made in his new Clause to carry out what was wanted on all sides of the House, I ask him if it would be possible to reconsider the drafting of subsection (5, a). The Minister will agree that this is a Clause which should be understood by the general public. It is not a Clause specifically for the courts, but something which must be made crystal-clear to every landlord, tenant and sub-tenant. Subsection (5, a) is one of the crucial points of the new Clause, and yet it is very obscure to the ordinary layman's mind. However, I do not say that there is anything wrong in its intention. It would be very helpful if the Minister would put it into plainer English which common people like myself can understand.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly I will have a look at this again. I have looked at it and looked at it and looked at it, but, as has been said before, the more one looks at these Acts relating to property, the more complicated they appear. If the hon. Member is asking me to undertake the burden of making this Clause understandable to the ordinary layman, I had better hand in my "checks" immediately because I do not think that is possible. Indeed, I would not like to deprive all the eminent lawyers in the House of the happy hunting ground which this Clause might make for them. I will look at it again, but I am satisfied that great simplification will be extremely difficult to achieve if we are still to keep the Clause to what we require.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) will notice on the Order Paper another Clause which we have put down to deal with excessive prices for furniture and so on. Where

an excessive price is charged, that charge can be treated as a premium.

9.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The view of the Opposition is that we are disposed to concede this new Clause to the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Concede?"] Yes, concede without a Division. That is a well-understood phrase and I do not think it lies in the mouth of hon. Members who have not borne the heat and burden of the day, to seek to prolong the heat and burden which the Minister and those of us on this side have endured all this time. As I say, we concede the Minister's Clause as an attempt to carry out what was desired by the House as a whole. Our position on this side of the Committee is that we do not regard a premium, as such, as an immoral or an undesirable thing, but there are circumstances in which, under the present excessive shortage, it may lead to abuses. If these abuses apply in the case of a premium demanded by a landlord, they apply a fortiori to a premium demanded by a person further down the chain who has done nothing whatever to provide the accommodation for which he is seeking to exact a payment. For that reason we urge upon the Minister that the Bill he has brought forward should be completed.
It is true that this legislation is extremely complicated, and this Clause is no exception to the general rule. Indeed, from the merely technical point of view the Minister might be complimented on the way in which he has improved upon the style of all those who have cultivated the growths in this strange jungle hi which we have been forced to wander. I think it adds strength to the case made before, and which we have put down new Clauses to deal with, that it should not be left to the experience of mere neophytes to try to find their way about this jungle, for these problems, which genuinely puzzle the most learned of the Law Officers on the other side of the House and my hon. and learned Friends on this side, will be a little above the level of the technical equipment and competence of the tribunal which will have to decide upon and interpret these questions in addition to the many other questions which we have left over to them. However, we shall deal with that point later when we come to it.
As the position stands, there is an opportunity for grave abuses in the originally perfectly reasonable and legitimate commercial practice of charging part of an annual payment as a lump sum; a process which was of advantage both to the landlord and to the tenant. However, I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that the payment of a premium is in every case simply a jumping of the queue.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think there is any difference between my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself. We are discussing here an illegal premium charged for possession of a controlled house. There it must be said that the person who pays the premium is jumping the queue, just as the person who exacts it is exploiting a shortage.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I agree, but what we are also discussing is the making illegal of a thing which previously was legal, and I do not think it can be said that in those cases a person was jumping the queue, although I agree that anyone making an illegal payment is certainly doing so.
We have one final test which can only be made by experience. It is whether this is administratively sound, whether it can be administered so as to operate without injustice to individuals and with the general assent of the community. Some hon. Members evinced doubts as to whether these things will be administratively possible, and even tonight one or two hon. Members have voiced objections, fearing that exceptions have been left which will lead to a sense of injustice in the community. For my part I would not desire the Minister to go further. We believe an attempt is here made which can only be decided by experience and, having asked for this during the Second Reading of the Bill, we assent to the attempt which the Minister has made to enshrine it within the Clauses of the Statute.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: In principle I welcome this new Clause which prohibits the payment of premium on the grant and assignment of a tenancy, but I am glad that the Minister will look at it again, and I should be glad if the

Solicitor-General will do so as well. I wonder if it is completely watertight? I have a suggestion to make—and I take some credit for the fact that I make it in public rather than that I should do so to clients in private—in order to get round this Clause.
It may be that by a conspiracy between a landlord and a tenant, money which amounts to a premium might still be extracted from the person in search of a flat or controlled dwelling-house, for what the Clause does is to prohibit the requiring of a premium as a condition of the granting or assignment of a tenancy. Assume that a person has a controlled dwelling-house of which he wants to dispose. As the Clause stands he could get round it in this way: He makes a bargain with the person wanting the house that the tenant will surrender his tenancy to the landlord if the person wanting the house will pay him £500. He surrenders it, and in that case there is no assignment. Then the tenant makes a bargain with the landlord that the landlord shall accept the surrender of the tenancy from him for £250, half of what the person wanting the dwelling-house has paid. In such a case it may very well be that, as between the sitting tenant and the purchaser, no premium has been required as a condition of the tenancy and that, as between the landlord and the new purchaser, no premium has been required for the granting of the tenancy.
That kind of procedure might well be pursued by persons wanting to circumvent the Clause, and the courts may interpret a transaction of that kind as being outside its terms. I should like the Minister, therefore, to consider whether he can make the Clause all-embracing in its application so that it will cover surrenders and transactions of that kind between a crooked tenant and a crooked landlord to defeat its object.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I should like to make one comparatively small point. I am not entirely happy about the veto on all premiums. I do not differ from my right hon. and hon. Friends in their welcome to the Clause but there is one point which we ought to consider, and which I hope the Minister will consider between now and the Report stage. By an absolute veto on premiums in the case of rent restricted dwelling-houses, there


is a danger that the housing of the people will be delayed and hampered.
Let me quote an actual example which was brought to my notice last week-end. A man who is in possession of a flat had his family at home with him when he took over the tenancy. His children have since gone to a boarding school and the flat is much larger than he and his wife require. They would be perfectly prepared to part with possession of the flat if they could move into alternative accommodation without expense to themselves. My point is this: If there could be some limitation in subsection (1) to say that a premium not exceeding one year's rent, or something of that order, which would enable a family or tenant who would be prepared to move and make accommodation available to other people to cover the moving expenses, we should help the housing of the people in many more cases than might on the surface seem possible.

Mr. Bevan: I certainly will look at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) but, obviously, for criminal offences we cannot do other than provide the normal penalties. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) there is a very simple solution. The vacating landlord could give a yearly tenancy.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts).

Mr. Bevan: If it is illegal—

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Under the Clause as drafted it may not be illegal.

Mr. Bevan: It may not be illegal; does the hon. Member wish to make it illegal?

Mr. Roberts: It may not have that effect.

Mr. Bevan: We will look into the point.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is not a
case of a landlord giving a year's tenancy, but of a restricted tenancy. The tenant would be quite prepared to divest himself if his expenses in moving to smaller accommodation could be made good. Here is a case of a flat which it too large

for the present requirements of the present tenant, who would be quite prepared to move if he could have enough to cover expenses, but there is no inducement to him to move.

Mr. Bevan: We cannot deal with the minutiae of every relationship. There is no reason why people should be allowed to charge a premium to someone else because they want to move.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR FURNITURE, &C., TO BE TREATED AS PREMIUMS.)

—(1) Where—

(a) whether before or after the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture or other articles has been required as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of a tenancy to which Section (Prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of tenancy) applies, and
(b) the price exceeds the reasonable price of the articles,
the excess shall be treated, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act and, so far as they continue to have effect, of Section eight of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as if it were a premium required to be paid as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of the tenancy.

(2) Where after the commencement of this Act any such purchase as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing Subsection is required as therein mentioned, the price demanded shall, at the request of the person on whom the demand is made, be stated in writing; and if, without reasonable excuse, a person required to give such a statement in writing fails within fourteen days to do so, or knowingly gives a statement which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(3) Subsection (1) of Section nine of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, is hereby repealed, but without prejudice to the effect of any statement of the price of articles given under that Subsection before the commencement of this Act.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause merely assimilates existing provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts as regard payments of an excessive character on furniture or other articles as a condition of the tenancy with the new provisions following


the passage of the Clause with which we have just dealt. The only additional point raised in this Clause is the requirement that in future, if a condition of this character is required, it must be given in writing.

Mr. J. Hynd: There is a point arising from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), who has now left the Committee, which impels me to ask the Minister if he really means that this new Clause covers such cases as were raised, namely, where a landlord undertakes considerable repairs and makes those repairs a condition of the tenancy. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that such a situation would be covered?

Mrs. Mann: I am glad to see that the question of furniture is covered, but the very important question of fittings arises here. In Scotland it has been well known that to charge a premium is illegal, but night after night we see advertisements in the newspapers which run like this, "Young couple require service flat"—or, "require accommodation"—"high price will be paid for fittings." The fittings may be just a nail in the bathroom, a towel rail or a laundry pole in the kitchenette. The price charged may be, and quite often has been, £100. It is really key money, but it goes under the guise of "fittings" and the operative word in all the advertisements is "fittings." I hope my right hon. Friend will make it very clear that fittings are covered by the word "furniture."

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) will look at the beginning of the new Clause she will see
whether before or after the commencement of this Act the purchase of any furniture or other articles …;.
I think what she has described would be covered by those words. I will certainly make quite sure that that is so, because I agree with the point which my hon. Friend made.

10.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: A point was made about decorations, etc. While it is obviously undesirable that the landlord should use decorations as an excuse for charging a premium, it is obviously desirable that a house should be decorated

before a new tenant enters. In most cases the new tenant would be glad if such decoration were carried out, and would be willing to pay for it. Is that point covered by the words of this Clause?

Mr. Bevan: I am not quite sure about that. I will look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into it because it will be a point of interest both to landlord and tenant.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF 1946.)

The amendments specified in the second column of the Second Schedule to this Act, being amendments to the Act of 1946, shall be made in the enactments specified in the first column of that Schedule.—[Mr. Janner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Would you permit me at this stage, Major Milner, also to deal with the new Schedule which stands in my name?—

AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF 1946

Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946,
9 &amp; 10 Geo. 6. c. 34

"Section four—
In paragraph (b) of Subsection (1), after the word 'renewal,' insert the words 'assignment, transfer.'

Section five—

For Section five there shall be substituted the following Section:
'If, before or after a contract to which this Act applies has been referred to a tribunal by the lessee or by the local authority (either originally or for reconsideration), a notice to quit the premises to which the contract relates has been or is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the decision of the tribunal is given or within three months thereafter and the period at the end of which the notice takes effect had not expired before the reference of the contract to the tribunal, the notice shall not take effect before the expiration of the said three months:

Provided that—

(a) the tribunal may, if they think fit, direct that a shorter period shall be substituted for the said three months in the application of this Section to the contract that is the subject of the reference; and


(b) if the reference is withdrawn, the period during which the notice is not to take effect shall end on the expiration of fourteen days from the withdrawal of the reference.'

Section twelve—
Subsection (4) shall not apply to accommodation registered after the passing of this Act for the purpose of Regulation 68CB of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.
The new Clause is coupled with the proposed Second Schedule, and I would ask you to allow me to deal with them together.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member is referring to the new Clause following the one which he is now moving, I must inform him that I have not been able to select it. It is quite inappropriate to this Bill.

Mr. Janner: This is a Bill dealing with the Act of 1946. The only type of Amendment which I am proposing is in precisely the same terms in regard to the 1946 Act as have already been proposed by the Minister in regard to the principal Acts. I would ask you to reconsider your decision, Major Milner, because it is a very material point. The assignment of properties which fall within the principal Acts is dealt with, but we are not going to deal with assignments of furnished houses, which are equally important, and must be protected if we are to have a comprehensive Measure. The other Clause also deals specifically with a point in relation to the 1946 Act, namely, that the tribunals have not the power to assess the rentals because they are being assessed or not being assessed by the local authorities. There can be no question that these matters come within the purview of the Bill.

The Chairman: I am not sure that I have altogether followed the hon. Member. It will be better if he would be good enough to confine himself to the first new Clause which stands in his name, and to the proposed Second Schedule, which apparently accompanies it.

Mr. Janner: I take it that I am being allowed to speak about the first new Clause in my name relating to the Act of 1946 and the Schedule? I am anxious in regard to that matter that we should have the provisions of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act complying with the similar provisions in respect

of the principal Acts relating to the stopping of premiums on assignments. In my view the principle was accepted by the Minister, after I had put down an Amendment to that effect, as one we ought to accept in relation to furnished lettings. The position with regard to furnished lettings at present is this. One cannot charge a premium at the time of letting, but a person who has taken a furnished letting can assign that furnished letting, and at the time of assignment can charge a premium in precisely the same way as the premium was chargeable in relation to the dwelling-houses which were outside the provisions of the principal Acts. The Minister has accepted the fact that this type of abuse should be remedied in relation to ordinary dwellings which are unfurnished, and I think that that should be extended to furnished houses covered by the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act.

Mr. Bevan: May I say to the hon. Member, and to the Committee, that there is no disposition on my part to quarrel with what he wants and I am prepared to concede its inclusion on Report stage.

Mr. Janner: There is only one other point in the Schedule and I think that perhaps the Minister will see his way to concede that as well. In regard to Section 12, it is stated:
Subsection (4) shall not apply to accommodation registered after the passing of this Act for the purpose of Regulation 68CB of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939.
The purpose of that is this. The owners of houses can sub-let separate furnished apartments under this particular regulation which are not controlled by the rent tribunals but which are supposed to be controlled, in so far as the rent is concerned, by the local authority. I do not think that there are a large number of them. If there are a number whether large or small, there are two separate bodies assessing the amount of rent that ought to be charged. On the one hand, there is the local authority, and on the other the rent tribunal. I am given to understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that very many of those lettings which were made under this provision have been registered by the local authority without the rent being raised. It seems to me in those circumstances that there is no longer any need for the


rent tribunals not to have jurisdiction over these lettings, and I would ask the Minister to say that he will consider that point also.

Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot accept that point at all. It would be an entire breach of faith with many people who have shared their homes and registered with the local authority. To allow them to be reviewed by the tribunals would be a breach of faith, especially having regard to the fact that many good people came forward in 1945 and 1946 and shared their homes on condition that if they registered them with the local authorities no action would be taken. That is precisely what the hon. Member was putting before the Committee. I hope he will not pursue every small Lilliputian category of house to its last lair at 10 minutes past 10 at night. I have said that I do not consider that there is any real grievance in not giving the tribunals the right to review the lettings that have already been registered by the local authorities.

Mr. Tanner: I am prepared to concede that. Although the Minister did not realise it, I wanted this to apply to those premises to be registered after the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Bevan: That is a point so Lilliputian as to be almost non-existent.

Mr. Janner: In the circumstances, and on the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(EXTENSION OF APPLICATION ACT OF 1946.)

Within twenty-eight days from the date of the passing of this Act the Minister shall by order direct that the Act of 1946 shall have effect forthwith in every district consisting of the whole or part of the area of every local authority in respect of which district an order under the Act of 1946 has not been made theretofore and the Act of 1946 shall thereupon come into force in each of such districts.—[Mr. Janner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this new Clause in order to point out that there are still a number of

local authorities who have not exercised their right to apply to the Minister for the provisions of the 1946 Act to apply in their districts. I am told, and I believe it to be the fact, that some local authorities refuse to have anything to do with the 1946 Act. It is grossly unfair that in some districts tenants should not have, in consequence of the remiss action on the part of their local authority, the right to bring their case before the tribunal.
This does not entail much difficulty for local authorities; all they had to do was to apply to the Minister, who I am sure would have encouraged them in their applications. It would not perhaps have been necessary to put a tribunal in their own district: another tribunal could have dealt with their cases. I know that the Minister is anxious to get all local authorities in. I do not want to press this if he thinks that they will come in in any case. I do feel, and others feel with me, that this is a matter which ought not to be confined even to the vast majority of authorities; all authorities should see that their tenants are protected.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In those engaging stories which we read in our youth about the steppes of Russia we were informed that the wolves usually pursued travellers for many miles over the steppes; from time to time the travellers hurled out one of their babies in the hope of stopping the wolves. The stories go on to explain that the wolves devoured those small morsels and were encouraged by them to pursue the travellers still more hotly, eventually completely devouring the inhabitants of the sledge. I commend this parable to the Minister, for the more he encourages the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) the faster do the wolves follow and the louder is their baying, and I feel that in the event they will completely devour the hopes we have of completing this Measure in a reasonable time tonight. For our part, we are opposed to this new Clause and feel that if it were accepted it would further slow up the promising progress we have made.

Mr. Bevan: I also am opposed to this last application of my hon. Friend, and propose to keep my last baby on the sledge.

Question put, and negatived.

The Chairman: In view of what the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has just said, I presume he does not desire to move the new Clause standing in his name.

Mr. Hogg: In default of my right hon. and gallant Friend, I should desire to do so.

NEW CLAUSE.—(APPLICATIONS BY PROSPECTIVE BUILDER OR LESSORS.)

(1) Any person applying for a licence to build any premises for letting for use as a dwelling-house may apply to the licensing authority at the same time as his application for licence to build or at any time prior to the first letting of such premises for an Order determining the standard rent of such premises when so let and upon receipt of such application and after hearing any representations made by or on behalf of such applicant the licensing authority shall determine the reasonable rent on the same principles as govern the tribunal under section one of this Act, and such rent when determined shall be the standard rent of such premises and no application shall be made thereafter to the tribunal in respect thereof.

(2) Where any person has executed or caused to be executed work upon the improvement or conversion of any premises to which the principal Acts apply and to which section one of this Act would apply upon the letting thereof, the person who has executed such work or caused the same to be executed, or any person entitled to let and desirous of letting such premises may apply to the tribunal for an Order determining the standard rent in advance of such letting, and in such event the tribunal shall make an Order determining the reasonable rent, in accordance with the principles set out in section one of this Act, and such rent when so determined shall be the standard rent of the such premises.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Minister's kindness in accepting a criticism I made during Second Reading emboldens me to ask whether he cannot see his way to accept this new Clause, to which at any rate some of us on this side of the Committee attach a good deal of importance. In the first place, I hope the Committee will accept my apologies for any inelegancies in drafting the Clause in its two parts. A person who has not the aid of the expert team of draftsmen that the Government can necessarily command, in seeking to draft Amendments, must do so with a grave

sense of the obligations of the subject and of his own inadequacy. I shall seek first to explain to the Committee the object which this Clause is designed to achieve, and secondly, discuss the suitability of the machinery with which it is sought to achieve it.
In the Second Reading Debate the Minister gave me courage to hope that he was not in any way seeking to discourage those who legitimately wanted to engage their money on building premises to let, or indeed in converting premises for the use of those who wish to take them on a lease. He further encouraged me to believe that he was not opposed to their receiving a reasonable return on their money. Indeed, he led the House to think—and I believe that he sincerely means it—that his aim in this Bill was to attack unreasonable arrangements designed to exploit a shortage, and not to discourage those who engaged in legitimate enterprise.
I suggested on Second Reading that a great deal of uncertainty would be saved if it were open to those who sought to build houses to let, or to convert premises for letting, if they knew in advance what they would be allowed to charge. If they in fact risk their money, spend their money on expensive capital operations, and then fall victim to an attempt by someone going to the tribunal, and perhaps persuading the tribunal to allow a less sum than affords a reasonable return on the money, that would be a discouragement of legitimate enterprise. My object has been to see to it that those who seek to embark their money on legitimate projects of this kind should know in advance what a proper return on the money is thought to be, and once that is found and determined by the appropriate authority it could not be further questioned.
I think we are all concerned as to what should be the appropriate authority if that principle is accepted. My own view is that in the case of new premises the appropriate authority should be the licensing authority, and I will tell the Committee why. A builder who seeks a licence to build ordinarily has to provide plans and specifications of the house he proposes to build to let, which ordinarily includes a statement of the rent he proposes to charge. If he does not provide those particulars, he does not get his


licence. If he does provide those particulars, and if the licensing authority comes to the conclusion that the rent which he is proposing to charge is a reasonable one, prima facie it ought not to be possible to question that further, and he ought not to make a second application to the tribunal. In other words, the builder ought to get a licence to charge the sum which the authority giving him the licence to build allows him to charge in obtaining the licence to build.
The second Subsection deals with conversion.
I think it would have been legitimate, and it might even be considered better, to have applied the same considerations to that Subsection. I have not, in fact, done so, but I have instead allowed the person seeking to convert to go to the tribunal. My view is that there is something to be said for that difference because in the case of conversions there is not the same guarantee that the premises when converted will actually be let as in the case of new buildings. But I will say "Thank you" to the Minister if he will accept my objective, which is to give certainty in advance of what a reasonable rent will be, although I am not wedded to the particular machinery I have chosen in these two Subsections.
I do not wish to prolong my speech. In fact, in my present state of health I do not think I could physically do so. I ask the Minister to give favourable consideration both to the objective behind this new Clause and the machinery with which we seek to carry it out.

Mr. Bevan: I hope it will be possible to shorten the discussion on this new Clause. I admit at once that this is a point of substance. In fact, hon. Members will recall that I mentioned this matter on Second Reading. This, however, is not the appropriate Bill for this purpose. Under Section 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, as the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has already said, the local authority agrees a maximum rent for a new house which they licence. That point is already covered by that Act.
Where, however, it is an adaptation or a conversion, that is not the case, and as I understand it the desire of the hon.

Member for Oxford is to try to secure that adaptations and conversions should be facilitated by giving those who wish to make them an idea of the profitability of their undertakings by fixing the rent. It is a desirable objective, but this is not the place where it can appropriately be secured, because this Bill does not deal with the provision of accommodation but rather with the fixation of rents. Very shortly, however, there is to be brought before the House, in fulfilment of the statement made in the Gracious Speech, a Measure dealing with reconditioning, and this point will be assimilated in that Bill when it is brought forward. I give the undertaking now that it will be regarded then.

Colonel Dower: I should like to say how much we welcome the friendly way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met this new Clause. He realises that it is a point of substance and that if conversions are to be encouraged, as we want to see them encouraged, then this is one of the first and best ways of giving encouragement. I have not been entirely idle in this particular activity, and I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when this new Measure comes under his examination he should bear in mind that there are two most urgent things to be considered before anyone gets down to the very hard work of converting a large house into four flats.
First, admittedly, is the question of the standard rent, because the person concerned will want to know beforehand what the expenses and returns are likely to be. Secondly, there is the point that assessments are altered as soon as the project is completed, and I hope that the Minister, when he examines this important subject, will remember that before anyone gets down to business and spends several thousands of pounds in alterations, a great deal of hard work has to be done—all the licences have to be dealt with, the plans, the builders and all sorts of other paraphernalia. The person concerned wants to know how the assessment will be altered.
That is very important. The person is not questioning what it should be, but he wants to know—and at present no one knows—what will come under the Rent Restrictions Acts and what will not. One day something comes under the Acts and


the next day it comes out, according to how the assessments are altered. It does lead to a tremendous amount of confusion. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this confusion prevents people from getting on with the work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he brings forward his proposal, to meet these two considerations which discourage enterprise and conversion. People want to know what the assessment is going to be and what would be a fair standard rent to charge.

Sir Ian Fraser: The Minister's conciliatory speech seemed to me to be satisfactory so far as the second part of this new Clause is concerned, for he indicated that he would consider the point of substance that has been made about conversions or adaptations. It was not clear to me, however, whether the statement was satisfactory in regard to the first part. He admitted that where application was made for a licence to build a new dwelling the price, including the rent, was before the licensing authority at the time when the licence was given. He half implied that that meant that the builder might take that to be the rent without further question, but he did not say so. Could he make it clear whether such a rent, having been approved, might subsequently be challenged in the courts proposed to be set up under this Measure?

Mr. Bevan: I think it is quite clear—and has, indeed, been made clear on a previous occasion—that those properties cannot be challenged. The maximum rents would have been fixed by the local authority when the licence was given. What we are dealing with here, as hon. Members will recollect, is new houses built to let. There are not very many of them, for obvious reasons. Most of them are built for private ownership. Where the builder wishes to build a house for letting, the conditions of rental are attached to the licence. That is covered by existing Statutes. That is not a standard rent for the purposes of the principal Acts, and therefore cannot be taken to the tribunal. In dealing with reconditioning and conversions, which are outside this Bill, because the Bill is not for the provision of accommodation, I have undertaken to consider the point in succeeding legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the interesting observation made by the Minister that he was about to bring forward legislation, and that he would have regard to the principle of this new Clause, I think it may be possible for my hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. I think it is true that, as a rule, one does not withdraw a new Clause on promise of consideration in subsequent legislation, but only on promise of consideration in the Measure itself. However, the Minister indicates that he expects his new Bill to come forward at an early date.
I wonder whether it would be possible for him to give any indication when he expects to be able to produce that new legislation. Will it be before Easter, or after Easter? I am sure it would be of assistance to those who, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) said, are anxious to get on with the job if they could look forward to some period during the present building season when it would be possible to obtain such a ruling as my hon. Friends have desired. Could the right hon. Gentleman give an indication that during the coming building weather such a ruling will be given? I am sure that if we were given such an indication, my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Bevan: I am not master of the timetable of the House, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, and such a question in the ordinary way would be put to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, as the case may be. It is not for me to determine the time when Bills will be introduced; but I imagine it will be introduced before long. As to whether it will be a suitable means of getting building done this year will depend upon the facilities given for it to be put into law. Once Bills are introduced, of course, Ministers are only too anxious to get them on to the Statute Book, and I should welcome the cooperation of the Opposition in getting this Bill into law as soon as possible. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it ought not to be many weeks before the Bill is in the Vote Office. I should have thought a few weeks at the outside.

10.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister will agree that the introduction


and circulation of a Bill is much more in the hands of the Minister than the time at which it will either be submitted or passed through the House. The Minister has extensive powers with regard to the circulation of a Bill. I think that, with his suggestion of a few weeks, it would be possible for people interested to know where they stand. We are no more willing than the Minister to buy a pig in a poke. I understand that the pig in a suitable poke will be submitted at an early time, and as soon as the poke is slit and the pig taken out, we will be glad to give the Minister our opinion of its suitability for baking. We are assured by the Minister that it will be brought to market within a few weeks. I think my hon. Friends will find that not unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hogg: I do not know what my right hon. and gallant Friend meant about pigs in pokes. If the Minister shows the same consideration to the Opposition as he has done on this new Clause, I can assure him that he will not find difficulty to any of his legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF TRIBUNALS.)

(1) The procedure of tribunals constituted for the purposes of the Act of 1946 and of section one of this Act shall, subject to such regulations, if any, as may be made in that behalf by the Minister, be such as the tribunal in question may determine, and every such tribunal—

(a) shall, unless the tribunal otherwise order, at the request of any party to the reference or application and upon being satisfied that the interests of either party would be prejudicially affected, sit in public;
(b) may take evidence on oath and shall have powers for that purpose to administer oaths;
(c) may direct that the costs of an application, or such part of the costs as they think fit, shall be paid by the applicant.

(2) On the hearing of any application—

(a) the applicant; and
(b) the landlord or the tenant or lessee of the house or part of a house or dwelling-house, when he is not the person making the reference or the applicant; and
(c) the local authority when it is not the party making the reference under the Act of 1946,


shall be entitled to appear and be heard as parties to the reference or application and to examine any witness before the tribunal and to call witnesses.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause brings up a question of the greatest importance, and I think it would be wrong for us not to move it. It deals with the procedure and power of tribunals. The whole of this Bill hinges on the one question—the tribunals. We have pleaded with the Minister, unsuccessfully, to define the directions which he wishes given to the tribunals. He has founded himself very strongly upon the reasonableness of the tribunals, and I ask the Committee to consider the proposals which we bring forward to deal with the machinery of this reasonable body. I commend the attention of the Committee particularly to the permissive power given to this body, on whose reasonableness the whole of this legislation rests, to direct
that the costs of an application, or such part of the costs as they think fit, shall be paid by the applicant.
These bodies are taking a more and more important place in our legislative structure. They are now going to be a permanent or quasi-permanent, part of our judicial machinery. I think it is high time that some more detailed code should be given to them than that which they have now; in particular, they should have these powers with regard to costs.

Mr. Molson: If there had been no cases of applications having been made in a frivolous way and great inconvenience and loss having been inflicted upon a landlord, I should not think we had strong grounds on which to ask for an amendment concerning the powers and constitution of these tribunals. However, I heard of a case the other day which I would like to put to the Minister. This was a case of a flat being let unfurnished. Even gas and electricity were paid for by the tenant, but in spite of that fact, the tenant alleged that it was a furnished flat and that service was provided. Inquiries were made and the landlord said there was no truth in these allegations. In spite of that fact, the tribunal required the landlord to put in an appearance and answer the charges and claims which were made, with the result that the land-


lord was obliged, for security's sake, to engage a solicitor and pay the bill of costs. In fact when the case appeared before the rent tribunal, the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction in the case. After that the matter was taken to the County Court and the landlord sought to secure a rent which had not been paid. He obtained an order for that rent, but of course not for the costs incurred in going before the tribunal. As a matter of fact, judgment was given but it was found impossible to enforce it.
This is an example of how at the present time, with the tribunals constituted as they are, it is possible for frivolous and unsubstantiated claims to be made, claims which are vexatious and unreasonable and for which there is no redress. Under this Bill the scope and powers of these tribunals is to be greatly extended, and I suggest to the Minister that it is extremely desirable that the tribunals should be put on a far more regulated footing than they are at present and that in cases where landlords are taken before them, and where, in fact, the tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no reasonable justification, then the costs should be awarded to the landlord.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I briefly support what has been said about the new Clause? I think the Committee will agree that this is the time when it should review the procedure of these rent tribunals. They were set up under the 1946 Act simply to last for two years. I think I am right in saying that at the present time their procedure is regulated solely by the Furnished Houses Regulations, which lay down one or two items of procedure only and leave the rest to the discretion of the tribunal.
The main new point which appears in the new Clause and is not within the present powers of the tribunal is the power to award costs, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). When the question was raised during the Debates in this House on the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, the Minister swept aside any suggestion of power to award costs in these proceedings by suggesting that the proceedings would be of a personal and domestic character in which the award of such costs would be unnecessary and out of keeping with the main purposes and functions of the Act.

As many hon. Members know, that has not been entirely true in practice and some considerable matters are now heard by the tribunals and, a fortiori, will be heard before the tribunals under the extended powers in this Bill. I think it is clear in these circumstances that there should be a power to award costs.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Powers are not given to award costs to the landlord as well, and therefore it seems to me that this is one-sided.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I take it that the reason is that this Clause was drafted before the acceptance of the Amendment which gave the landlord the right to initiate proceedings, and since there is only one party which can initiate proceedings there is a case for restricting costs in this way. Hon. Members may shake their heads as much as they like, but there surely can be no point in allowing an award of costs to a landlord since he, by the very nature of things, could not make a frivolous application—the landlord could not at that time make an application at all. I think there should be this power to award costs, if for no no other reason than to act as a deterrent against those likely to make frivolous applications—that is, frivolous applications by tenants.
Hon. Members may have within their knowledge a parallel which one finds in the proceedings before licensing authorities under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. In that Act, for some reason, no provision has ever been made in regard to costs and the result is that in many cases applications are made under the Act and people are put to some trouble and expense in opposing applications when they cannot recover their costs even if an applicant does not appear at the hearing. That is something which not infrequently occurs.
I think there must be some sort of sanction of costs in respect of these matters. So far as that particular Act has been concerned, it has gone on for a long time without any redress having been obtained; and so far as the Housing Act, 1946, is concerned, there would have been this wrong going on for a long time without redress had not the Bill now before the Committee afforded a very welcome opportunity to put the matter right. I suggest, therefore, that


it would be shortsighted not to accept the opportunity which is given.

Mr. Bevan: I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree that we have gone along in an amiable way up to now, but if hon. Members are going to persist in this matter I really must dig my toes in. If I conceded this point, the tribunals would be so formal that a large number of people would be frightened of going to them. We are dealing in the main with people in furnished lettings; some hon. Members think that the new Clause is not applicable to the tribunals, but to the courts of law, but if costs are assigned by the tribunals the fear might be a deterrent to people wishing to appear before the tribunals. I would remind the Committee that Section 2 (6) of the Act of 1946, reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section, a tribunal shall not be required to entertain a reference made otherwise than by the local authority if they are satisfied, having regard to the length of time elapsing since a previous reference made by the same party or to other circumstances, that the reference is frivolous or vexatious.
10.45 p.m.
So that the principal Act does attempt to deal with applications of the kind to which reference has been made. It is not always possible for the tribunal to know whether an application is frivolous until the landlord has been summoned to appear. I admit that that is the case; but I cannot accept so heavy an arbitrament, so grandiose an armament, as the assigning of costs to deal with the comparatively rare cases of that sort, a device which would have the effect of making the tribunals practically inaccessible to large numbers of people who might fear the result of going there. With regard to the other part of the new Clause, I think it undesirable so to formalise the procedure as to give these lay tribunals the effect of having in the main the appearance and austerity of a court of law.

Mr. J. Foster: I will not speak for long. The Minister will probably appreciate, on reading it, that the Clause for the safeguard against frivolous appeals in the 1946 Act applies only as to the length of time which has elapsed.

Mr. Bevan: And in other circumstances. The words are, "or to other circumstances."

Mr. Foster: The other circumstances usually do not appear until they have started the inquiry. It is difficult to say whether they are frivolous until the tribunal has heard the case, except for the length of time. The other point is that I think the procedure of these tribunals does differ, and differs sometimes to the disadvantage of the lessee—the poor man. The Minister probably remembers that under the regulations made under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, there are set out in the First Schedule the questions which the tribunal can put to the lessor and the lessee. One of these questions is, What is the financial relationship of the lessor to the house—how much he paid for the house, what the mortgage is?—and so on.
That information clearly ought to be communicated to the lessee. He cannot judge whether the application is likely to succeed or not, and cannot argue the application unless that vital information on the full standing of the lessor with reference to the house is communicated to the tenant. This is a point which goes to the protection of the tenant, and the right hon. Gentleman has made himself the champion throughout the evening of the tenant. The tribunals differ as to whether they should communicate any information to the tenant at all. I think that shows that some regularity should be introduced into their proceedings. There are other points which my hon Friends have adumbrated.
The Minister, I think, is saying that this matter is not covered by the new Clause. He will find that it is covered by the regulations which can be made by the Minister. The new Clause says, "subject to such Regulations." The Minister can make regulations under this new Clause with regard to this procedure. It is part of the general argument. Anyone who practises in the courts sees the pathological side of these regulations. When injustice is caused, the people, tenant or landlord are, not unnaturally, very resentful. I do not think the Minister has sufficiently in mind the necessity for curing these cases and yet having an easy tribunal of which people are not frightened. He has not sufficiently in mind the injustices which are often committed. I ask him to bear these things in mind.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think the Minster can accuse me of taking up an unreasonable attitude. I wonder whether he has given sufficient consideration to this new Clause and to the arguments with which he resisted it. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to three or four points mentioned in the new Clause. The first is that the tribunals should sit in public. My own view is that that is absolutely essential in any tribunal which is to administer public justice, unless there are overriding circumstances, as there sometimes are in cases of domestic disputes and other things, demanding a private sitting. We often hear in the House about justice seeming to be done as well as being done, and my own view is that the only way in which you can ensure that real justice is done, especially if you put your reliance, as the Minister does, upon an informal hearing, is the right of the public, in the shape of persons who wish to hear and in the shape of the Press, to hear proceedings which come before the tribunals of this country. I do not think this is erecting the tribunal into a sort of court of law of which people need be afraid. Here is something which is absolutely essential to the administration of justice, and I wish the Minister would take this point a little more seriously than he has done.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the 1946 Act, regulations already provide for hearing in public in roughly the same terms as this? To this extent it is accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Hogg: I hope the Minister does accept it, but the way in which he has treated this new Clause does not lead me to think so. The second point is that the tribunal should take evidence on oath. I should like to see it abolished, for it brings religion into contempt and offers no additional safeguard, but one thing it does do, so long as it remains the criterion of formal evidence, is to bring into operation the sanction of the law of perjury. Is the Minister satisfied that a person who puts forward a deliberately false case can be punished as a perjurer if he does so to his own knowledge? I should like to be reassured on this point.
The third and most controversial point is the question of means. Here I do not

go all the way with the Minister. Costs are not necessarily a very large item. They may be as little as five shillings or ten shillings, but that may mean everything to a person who has been compelled to attend a tribunal out of his own time on somebody else's application. I do not think that in ordinary cases there should be an order for costs, but in cases of applications which are, in fact, frivolous, I think the tribunal should have the power to award costs. I know of many instances where the threat to a landlady, who may be a relatively poor old woman, by one of her own class who happened to be her tenant, to bring her before a tribunal, absolutely paralysed her with fear. Although the Minister cannot accuse me of having taken up a hostile attitude to this Bill, I say that there can be, especially in view of the Minister's attitude yesterday, a real burden of oppression in the case of an unscrupulous tenant, bearing in mind that he has nothing to fear by an application of this kind, and can terrorise a person, often of the opposite sex and of inferior economic position, into making concessions which ought never to have been made.
The third point deals with those who have the right, to appear before these tribunals. I cannot see that anything would be lost by granting that part of this Clause. Perhaps the Minister does so already, or intends to do so, by regulations. These persons have a right to be heard, although they are not immediately parties to the reference. It would not add necessarily to the formality or expense of the proceedings. I attach the greatest importance to matters of this kind. I do not believe it is true that by informalising justice you necessarily improve it. The necessity for the observation of certain fundamental rules in judicial proceedings is an essential means of seeing that justice is carried out. That is the more so in cases like these, where the parties are not usually experienced in conducting argument, and are liable to be swept off their feet by an opponent with a glib tongue or aggressive manner. I wonder whether the Minister has given this matter adequate consideration, and I wish he would give it more.

Mr. P. Roberts: The Minister is afraid that exorbitant costs would frighten a poor man away,


but will he consider limiting the amount of costs which can be awarded by the tribunal to 20s., or some sum like that? I am much impressed with the argument that has been put forward by my hon. Friends, and equally by the argument of the Minister that to frighten off a poor man with costs might be detrimental to the intention of the Bill; but surely between the two there can be found a figure which might meet both points of view. I ask the Minister to consider such a suggestion.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say a word in support of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. The Minister says that this might frighten people from making applications, but applicants who were not bringing forward frivolous and vexatious cases would have nothing to fear. This merely gives a discretionary power to the tribunal to award costs in proper cases. I do not think the fears which the right hon. Gentleman expressed have a solid foundation, and I should like him to say that he will give this matter further consideration. I think he will, if he accepts a Clause to provide for these matters, enabling these tribunals to function more fairly and more equitably, and to give greater satisfaction to all sections of the public who come before them. The tribunals would be strengthened by having this power put into their hands.

Mr. Bevan: It is evident that the Opposition, having managed to get me to throw out a large number of babies from the sledge on the way to my destination, wish now to take the sledge itself from under me. I really must resist the new Clause, in spite of the persuasive way it has been moved and supported, and I think we might now make a little progress. Hon. Members will admit that we have discussed on several occasions yesterday and today the status of the tribunals, to what extent they should be formalised, and to what extent not. The Clause does not talk about making costs in the event of vexatious claims. It speaks about assigning costs, and powers of that sort give rise to apprehension in

the minds of people who may come to the tribunal for justice.

11.0 p.m.

Moreover, the costs are not against the landlord; the costs are against the applicant. It is true it has been limited, because now the landlord can apply; but in fact in only a very few cases would he apply, and then it would be only where he wanted to make sure of what would be a reasonable rent for his premises and therefore what the value of the premises would be. In most cases under the Clause the costs would be against the applicant who is going to the tribunal for justice. Can hon. Members imagine anything more terrifying in a tribunal of this sort than giving evidence upon oath?

Mr. P. Roberts: Why should they not tell the truth?

Mr. Bevan: There is no argument that they do not tell the truth because they are not giving evidence on oath. On many occasions I have accepted what the hon. Member has said, but he has not said it on oath. He normally speaks the truth.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with my point. I agree in general with what he says about the oath, but where deliberately false evidence is given there should be the sanction of the Perjury Act.

Mr. Bevan: That is a very strong instrument to use in such a case. I suggest that we do not want it here.
With regard to the other point, the Act of 1946 gives the right for both parties to be heard. In this Bill it does not give the right for the local authority to be heard. If it is not a party to the proceeding, there is no reason why the local authority should be there at all. I am perfectly prepared to make regulations permitting that in this Bill, although I see no reason why it should be done. I hope, therefore, that we can get on now with the Bill. We have done very well so far.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85, Noes, 230.

NEW CLAUSE.—(APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT.)

(1) Any person (including the local authority) who appeared before a tribunal constituted for the purposes of the Act of 1946 or of Section one of this Act on a reference or an application and is aggrieved by the determination of the tribunal thereon may, within twenty-one days from the date of the determination, appeal to the County Court for the county court district in which the house or part of a house or dwelling-house in question is situated, and the court, after hearing such of the persons who appeared as aforesaid as desire to be heard, may determine what rent is reasonable for that house or part of a house or dwelling-house or the period at the end of which a notice to quit which has been served shall take effect and may give any directions which the tribunal might have given.

(2) The provisions of the Act of 1946 and of this Act relating to the notification of decisions by a tribunal and to the registration of rents shall apply to a determination by a County Court under this Section.—[Mr. J. Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. Foster: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the last baby which we want the right hon. Gentleman to throw from his sledge. It is one way of keeping the wolves at bay; another way is to read one of the new Clauses of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). The object of this Clause is to allow an appeal to the county court from the decision of the tribunal. We have heard at various stages the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that tribunals should not be formalised and that they should be allowed to wander at will without any specific directions and without bringing their minds to the precise questions at issue.
I do not know whether it is realised that a tribunal can deliberately or by

inadvertence misconstrue the Acts and there is no appeal from it at all. Instances have been known of tribunals completely misconstruing the purpose of the Acts. The only forms of appeal which lie are certiorari mandamus and prohibition. They allow decisions of the tribunal to be quashed by the superior court only if the court had no jurisdiction, or had deliberately refused to hear some case it should have heard, or heard some case it should not have heard. If it only included or excluded evidence, there is no appeal. The sense of injustice which is created, however, in the minds of the tenants or landlords when a tribunal, perhaps innocently, misbehaves in this way is very great. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he will not allow an appeal to the county court, which is an experienced court in these matters and which deals with questions analogous to this, under the Rent Restrictions Act. I ask him to consider whether it should not have a revising jurisdiction over that of the tribunal.
11.15 p.m.
The advantage would also be that the tribunals would have to give their reasons, and there is likely to be a feeling of injustice if the tribunals give their decisions without giving any reasons. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot allow an appeal to the county court, either in this form or in some modified form. I feel confident that there is an advantage in allowing an appeal in a restricted number of cases. There would not be a great number of cases where the county court would upset the tribunal on questions of fact; it would do so only if it were convinced that the tribunal misdirected itself so fundamentally that the county court did not


consider the proper principles to be applied.

Mr. Bevan: I am quite honestly astonished that the hon. Member has moved this new Clause, because the effect of it would be to put an end to the tribunals. To give the landlord the right to take the appellant to the county court after having been to the tribunal would murder the tribunal as an effective instrument to do its work. I am astonished that at this stage, after the long discussions on the 1946 Act and today, a Clause should be moved which would destroy the effectiveness of the tribunals as an arbitrator on facts brought before it.
The county court is no better than a lay tribunal of this sort in assessing the facts. If the matters that the tribunal decides lie outside its jurisdiction, there already is an appeal to the courts, which has been done on several occasions; but where it is a decision about fact the county court ought not to be saddled with the mass of material which might go there. I think it would not go there, because in point of fact the tribunals would have less and less work to do.

Mr. Foster: What is the Minister's attitude about appeals on points of law, because the provisions do not cover points of law except in a very few cases.

Mr. Bevan: Once we allow appeals against the tribunals on points of law. Members in all parts of the House know that a forest of litigation would start at once and the tribunals would be lost in it. It is intended that these tribunals should be simple tribunals, arbitrating about matters of immediate and particular fact in the relations between families in a variety of different circumstances. I take the view that they are far more effective tribunals for this purpose than the county courts. We might as well go straight to the county court as to have an appeal to them on questions of fact. Exactly the same evidence would be regurgitated before the county court as was already heard by the tribunal. I must resist this new Clause because its effect would be to destroy the tribunals. If, after all this time, Members want to destroy the tribunals, they should really say it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I thought the Minister might perhaps have conceded a little more to us in view of the Explan-

atory Memorandum to his own Bill, which indicates that this is something very different from 1946. It is his own Memorandum that says that, as a result of the passing of this Measure, the number of cases to be dealt with by the tribunals is expected to be doubled—28,000 cases a year. I think the Minister under-estimated the number of divergences that may easily arise, and are almost bound to arise, when this number of cases in all parts of the country is being considered by these purely lay tribunals. After all, in the case of the valuation courts, which are also lay courts under the Local Government Act, appeals are granted to the county courts. I think it is a philosophical problem with which the Minister is well acquainted that the difference in numbers brings about a difference in kind. These tribunals will be permanent courts dealing with from 20,000 to 30,000 cases and not temporary courts dealing with matters of furnished lettings. It is not possible to retain these tribunals outside the main legal stream of the country. We wish to come to a decision as rapidly as possible, but we are bound to put these points before the Minister. This is not a wrecking Clause, but is designed to see that a piece of machinery which is being set up cannot be divorced from the judicial system of the country.

Sir I. Fraser: The Minister said the result of allowing appeals on points of law would be to provide a whole forest of cases. There is an exact analogy that will be familiar to him, namely, that of the appeal tribunals set up to deal with war pensioners' claims. The whole feeling on all sides of the House when these tribunals were set up was that they should be homely affairs, not particularly formal and not necessarily legalistic or following procedure in any well-defined form, but friendly tribunals to which men could come with confidence and get fair judgment. Fortunately, there is an appeal on points of law. Here is a situation where between 30,000 and 50,000 cases go to the tribunals and only a few score of cases go to appeal on points of law. Moreover, there is a value in allowing cases to go to appeal on points of law because one can get a directive from the superior court which comes to the tribunals and can assist in bringing about uniformity of judgment throughout the


country. The Minister is misinformed in thinking that to allow appeals to go to the courts would lessen the value of the tribunals. On the contrary, it would make them more useful.

Mr. Asterley Jones: I hope that the Minister has not said the last word on this matter. Clearly the new Clause is a little wide, but it is very unjust if there is to be, as there has been, no appeal when a tribunal has made a mistake on a point of law. May I suggest that he looks at the procedure which is adopted in appealing from a magistrate's court? It is a very cheap procedure and is by way of case stated, when all the facts have to be agreed and it is left to the superior court to say what is the law to be applied.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I agree with what has been said about the Clause being too wide, but I think there is no doubt that some provision should be made for appeals. There is a method of appeal, that of certiorari, but I do not suppose the Minister would pretend it is a cheap and easy method of correcting errors in the tribunals. There was no provision for appeal in the 1946 Act, but there should have been. Even if that were not so, the extension of the powers of the tribunals under this Bill would make it desirable for an appeal to be possible in the cases referred to by my hon. Friend in the future working of the tribunals. May I quote a short passage from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in one of the cases to which I have referred as coming from the divisional court? It is:
We cannot but think that if Parliament had intended by the 1946 Act to authorise tribunals set up thereunder in their discretion and by their unappealable decision to reduce the standard rent and over-ride the permitted increase, they would have expressed that intention in clear and definite terms; and it is supposed that, moreover, they would have provided that one member at least of each tribunal would have been a person having legal qualifications.
In these circumstances, it is clear, on that very high authority, that there should be a provision for appeal. Finally, may I say that I am told that on one occasion, the Attorney-General said it was possible to see how well these tribunals had

worked by reason of the fact that there had not been one single case of appeal from their decisions. If it had been possible for there to have been an appeal, he could hardly have made that so plain, because I feel that there would have been a number of appeals; although not the forest of appeals which has been suggested by the Minister. I suggest that we should pay some attention to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). The Committee must agree that nobody would contemplate the abolition of appeals in the case of Service pension awards. Why, therefore, should appeals not be initiated in the case of the rent tribunals?

Mr. Marlowe: As so often happens, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to address his mind to the point. First, he said there was no appeal provided in the 1946 Act. That is true, but it created no precedent at all because this new piece of legislation is framed to meet an entirely different situation. Even if it were a precedent, we should be in a poor way if we were certain that we should have to spend the rest of our lives bearing the follies of the right hon. Gentleman over the last few years.
Secondly, we are told that if appeals are allowed the courts would be cluttered up with appeals. I must say that the right hon. Gentleman must have a very poor opinion of the tribunals if he thinks that they do their work so inadequately that the courts will be crowded out with appeals. Earlier today the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he did not like lawyers, and that is hardly surprising. He is shrewd enought to know that a court of law does not easily tolerate the kind of rhetoric he believes in—the kind of rhetoric which believes in destroying the case of one's opponent when it has not been made. Furthermore, he is engaged in a course of undermining justice in this country and substituting "people's courts."

11.30 p.m.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 194.

Division No. 64.]
AYES
[11.5 pm.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Bower, N.
Challen, C.


Birch, Nigel
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Boothby, R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Byers, Frank
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.




Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Darling, Sir W Y.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, H (Handsworth)


Digby, S. W
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, P G. (Ecclesall)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Low, A. R W
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Major Sir J
Ropner, Col. L.


Drewe, C.
McCallum, Maj. D
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Spearman, A. C. M


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McFarlane, C. S
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gage, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D, (Pollok)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Marlowe, A. A. H
Walker-Smith, D.


Gammans, L. D.
Marsden, Capt A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir J
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Howard, Hon. A
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Major Conant and


Jarvis, Sir J.
Osborne, C.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.


Albu, A. H.
Farthing, W. J
Longden, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Fernyhough, E.
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Follick, M.
McGhee, H. G.


Austin, H. Lewis
Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Awbery, S. S.
Forman, J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S


Bacon, Miss A
Freeman, J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Baird, J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Balfour, A
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barstow, P. G
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)


Barton, C.
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Beswick, F
Grey, C. F.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grierson, E.
Mellish, R. J.


Bing, G. H. C
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Binns, J
Guy, W. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, A
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie
Monslow, W.


Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Moody, A. S.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col, R
Morley, R


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Burden, T. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murray, J. D.


Burke, W. A.
Haworth, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Carmichael, James
Hobson, C. R
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Castle, Mrs. B. A,
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Champion, A. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Horabin, T. L
Paget, R. T.


Cobb, F. A.
Hoy, J.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Cocks, F. S.
Hubbard, T.
palmer, A. M. F.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cove, W. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Crawley, A.
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Cullen, Miss
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Johnston, Douglas
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
price, M. Philips


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Pritt, D. N.


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C
Proctor, W. T.


Delargy, H. J.
King, E. M.
Pryde, D. J.


Diamond, J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Randall, H. E


Dodds, N. N
Kinley, J.
Ranger, J.


Donovan, T.
Lang, G.
Rankin, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Robertson, J. J (Berwick)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Ewart, R.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Royle, C.







Sargood, R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Scollan, T.
Swingler, S
West, D. G.


Segal, Dr. S
Sylvester, G. O.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Shackleton, E. A. A
Symonds, A. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Skeffington, A. M.
Timmons, J.
Willis, E.


Skinnard, F. W
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S.


Snow, J. W
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Yates, V. f.


Sorensen, R. W
Warbey, W. N.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, T. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Sparks, J. A.
Watson, W. M.



Steele, T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Weitzman, D.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Bowden.


Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Division No. 65.]
AYES
[11.33 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Birch, Nigel
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boothby, R.
Grimston, R. V.
Osborne, C.


Bossom, A. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr, J. G.
Hulchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Byers, Frank
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Vane, W. M. F


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wadsworth, G.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale.)
Medilcott, Brigadier F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lorn


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Major Conant and Mr. Digby.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Albu, A. H.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibbins, J.
Marples, A. E


Awbery, S. S.
Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gilzean, A.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bacon, Miss A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian


Baird, J.
Gray, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R


Balfour, A.
Grierson, E.
Monslow, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Barton, C.
Guy. W. H.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hale, Leslie
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Beswick, F.
Hall Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Murray, J. D.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Binns, J.
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J. (Derby)


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oliver, G. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hobson, C. R
Paget, R. T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Holman, P
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J
Pargiter, G. A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, M.)
Parkin, B. T.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, H, D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Carmichael, James
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pearl, T. F.


Collindridge, F.
Janner, B.
Porter, E (Warrington)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jenkins, R. H.
Price, M. Philips


Crawley, A.
Johnston, Douglas
Pritt, D. N.


Cullen, Miss
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Rankin, J.


Deer, G.
King, E. M.
Reid, T (Swindon)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rhodes, H.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J (Berwick)


Dodds, N. N.
Lang, G
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Donovan, T.
Lavers, S.
Royle, C.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Scollan, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Longden, F
Sharp, Granville


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lyne, A. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)


Ewart, R.
McGhee, H. G
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Fairhurst, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J.


Farthing, W. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Skinnard, F. W.


Fernyhough, E.
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islingion, E.)
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Follick, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.







Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sparks, J. A
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Steele, T.
Wallace G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willis, E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Warbey, W. N.
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Stross, Dr. B.
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stubbs, A. E
Watson, W. M.
Woods, G. S.


Swingler, S.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Yatea, V. F.


Sylvester, G. O.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Symonds, A. L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Zilliacus, K.


Taylor, R. J. (Horpeth)
West, D. G.



Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)



Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden.


Timmons, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

NEW CLAUSE.—(ADDITIONAL DEFINITION OF TENANT UNDER PRINCIPAL ACTS.)

From the date of the passing of this Act the expression "tenant" as defined in the principal Acts shall also include a widow of a contractual tenant who was residing with him at the time of his death or where the contractual tenant leaves no widow or is a woman such member of the contractual tenant's family so residing as aforesaid as may be decided in default of agreement by the county court:

Provided that if such widow or any of the aforesaid members of the contractual tenant's family residing with him gives notice in writing to the landlord within twenty-eight days of the date of the death of the contractual tenant that such widow or member of the family does not desire to become the tenant each of such persons who give notice as aforesaid shall not be included in the expression "tenant."—[Mr. Janner.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Janner: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time.
I do not propose to take very long over this new Clause. I think it should be perfectly obvious that this is an anomaly in the principal Act which ought to be removed. As the position is today, if a statutory tenant dies the widow or some other member of the family, failing agreement settled by the county court, becomes the statutory tenant and continues in that tenancy if that person has been living in the house before. The position with regard to the tenancy where there is a contract, even if it is only a weekly tenancy, is that if the tenant dies while that contract is in existence, the widow has no right at all unless she happens to be the executrix or adminstratrix of the estate, and even then it is doubtful whether the court would permit her to remain a tenant.
That is an extremely serious thing, because it makes a difference of such a ridiculous nature in regard to two people who are in precisely the same position except for the fact that notice has been given in one case before the tenant dies

and in the other case the notice has not been given. These matters have been brought to the courts of justice, and there have been cases in which the judges have come to majority decisions. There have been dissenting judgments. It is obvious that some of the judges believe that a contractual tenant should have the right. I will give the Committee only one case which will show clearly how shocking it is that a system of this nature should prevail. The administrator of the estate of a deceased person had a notice served on him by the landlord. A sister of the deceased had been living in the house for a considerable period, and the court held, by a majority, that the sister was not entitled to remain, and she had to leave the house. If the notice had been given beforehand, all other things being precisely the same, with the sole exception that the Statute would have covered the tenant who was living there, the sister would have been able to remain.
That position ought not to be allowed to continue. I am not sure the Minister is convinced yet. I am not particular about the wording of the Clause, which may require some alteration. I have merely put it down, in the same form as in one of the Sections of the principal Act—I think 12 (a) or 12 (b)—so that the matter shall be considered. I am quite prepared to have any wording the Minister thinks necessary. There are a large number of people who do not know this position exists, and when misfortune reaches them on the death of the head of the household they find themselves confronted with a situation which they never dreamt existed.

Mr. Bevan: I must resist this new Clause, because it seems to me wholly inappropriate to try and put in a small amending Bill of this sort a proposal which ought to find its place in a much wider Measure. To try and vary the terms of contract to give the contractual


tenant the protection the statutory tenant possesses under the principal Act, appears to me, in the circumstances, to be unnecessary and undesirable. There may be a point here to be dealt with at some time, but this is surely not the time, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the matter further. I have considered it, and if I agreed to this new Clause there would be no reason why we should not have, by a succession of Amendments, what would amount to a major alteration of the principal Act. It was never intended to use this Bill for that purpose.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL

Select Committee to consist of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection;

Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House;

Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions;

Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them;

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R, J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.